Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

The only way to correct the problem is to raise employment taxes; raise the retirement age; or cut benefits. This MEANS that SS is currently insolvent and will bankrupt if something isn't done.

No, it doesn't mean its currently insolvent. You either don't understand what the word "insolvent" means or what the word "currently" means.
Phasing it out is also an option.
No it isn't.

SS ought to at least be an opt in program, instead of a forced in one.

Your state or local government is free to provide you a substitute program. The teachers into Louisiana pay into the states retirement fund - not SS. The entire city of Galveston, TX, also has opted out.

I know what insolvent means. I also qualified my statement by underscoring what has to happen in order to make it solvent. This is not mere rhetoric I am espousing. link

Selling off treasury bonds cannot solve the problem of tax receipt short falls indefinitely. Right now SS has approximately .73 cents for every obligated 1.00. It is making that up on the backs of younger workers.

SS is not an actual fund- it is an accounting device- There is no actual money in SS, merely IOU's. link
 
The only way to correct the problem is to raise employment taxes; raise the retirement age; or cut benefits. This MEANS that SS is currently insolvent and will bankrupt if something isn't done.

No, it doesn't mean its currently insolvent. You either don't understand what the word "insolvent" means or what the word "currently" means.

No it isn't.

SS ought to at least be an opt in program, instead of a forced in one.

Your state or local government is free to provide you a substitute program. The teachers into Louisiana pay into the states retirement fund - not SS. The entire city of Galveston, TX, also has opted out.

I know what insolvent means. I also qualified my statement by underscoring what has to happen in order to make it solvent. This is not mere rhetoric I am espousing. link

OK then - I guess its the word "currently" you don't understand.

Selling off treasury bonds cannot solve the problem of tax receipt short falls indefinitely. Right now SS has approximately .73 cents for every obligated 1.00. It is making that up on the backs of younger workers.

All Social Security benefits are paid by the workers - that's the way its always been and always will be.


SS is not an actual fund- it is an accounting device- There is no actual money in SS, merely IOU's. link

U.S. Treasury obligations are the safest dollar denominated asset available other than straight up hard currency. Hard currency doesn't earn interest though.

So while its not "actual money" - neither is most of the money deposited in your savings account, either. All that money is handed out and replaced by IOU's, too. In fact - that's how banking is done.


You are right that it is an accounting device, though, keeps us from having to adjust the FICA tax every fucking year.
 
No, it doesn't mean its currently insolvent. You either don't understand what the word "insolvent" means or what the word "currently" means.

No it isn't.



Your state or local government is free to provide you a substitute program. The teachers into Louisiana pay into the states retirement fund - not SS. The entire city of Galveston, TX, also has opted out.

I know what insolvent means. I also qualified my statement by underscoring what has to happen in order to make it solvent. This is not mere rhetoric I am espousing. link

OK then - I guess its the word "currently" you don't understand.

Selling off treasury bonds cannot solve the problem of tax receipt short falls indefinitely. Right now SS has approximately .73 cents for every obligated 1.00. It is making that up on the backs of younger workers.

All Social Security benefits are paid by the workers - that's the way its always been and always will be.


SS is not an actual fund- it is an accounting device- There is no actual money in SS, merely IOU's. link

U.S. Treasury obligations are the safest dollar denominated asset available other than straight up hard currency. Hard currency doesn't earn interest though.

So while its not "actual money" - neither is most of the money deposited in your savings account, either. All that money is handed out and replaced by IOU's, too. In fact - that's how banking is done.


You are right that it is an accounting device, though, keeps us from having to adjust the FICA tax every fucking year.

To pretend SS is solvent as it is currently projecting funding is irresponsible. You can play semantics all day long...SS is in trouble and it does need to be addressed.

SS was not set up to be, nor is it supposed to be, a bank- that congress began acting as if it were one is all the more reason to rethink its usefulness. The idea that Treasury bonds are safe was not my point. The point is that T-bills are not able to earn enough rate of return to sustain SS as it is currently funded (see I also know how to use the word currently)because, these T-bills are not used for SS alone, meaning, that it's all a shell game. (since you object to ponzi scheme)
 
The only way to correct the problem is to raise employment taxes; raise the retirement age; or cut benefits. This MEANS that SS is currently insolvent and will bankrupt if something isn't done.

No, it doesn't mean its currently insolvent. You either don't understand what the word "insolvent" means or what the word "currently" means.

No it isn't.

SS ought to at least be an opt in program, instead of a forced in one.

Your state or local government is free to provide you a substitute program. The teachers into Louisiana pay into the states retirement fund - not SS. The entire city of Galveston, TX, also has opted out.

I know what insolvent means. I also qualified my statement by underscoring what has to happen in order to make it solvent. This is not mere rhetoric I am espousing. link

Selling off treasury bonds cannot solve the problem of tax receipt short falls indefinitely. Right now SS has approximately .73 cents for every obligated 1.00. It is making that up on the backs of younger workers.

SS is not an actual fund- it is an accounting device- There is no actual money in SS, merely IOU's. link

It's like writing "I Owe Me $1,000,000" on a scrap of paper, stuffing it in a jar and then proclaiming that you have a $1,000,000 retirement fund.

:lol:
 
U.S. Treasury obligations are the safest dollar denominated asset available other than straight up hard currency. Hard currency doesn't earn interest though.

So while its not "actual money" - neither is most of the money deposited in your savings account, either. All that money is handed out and replaced by IOU's, too. In fact - that's how banking is done.


You are right that it is an accounting device, though, keeps us from having to adjust the FICA tax every fucking year.

FICA was adjusted this year...

DOWN actually.

WTH?
 
As part of the deal Obama forged to extend unemployment benefits at the end of 2010, not only did tax rates stay the same across the board, but he also enacted what amounts to a substantial stimulus package by way of reducing the FICA rate by 2% to 4.2% for employees. In effect, this is a 2% bonus to all workers up to the cap of $106,800.

FICA Tax Rates 2011 - How They Work and Why They Matter

Cause Poo will want proof....
 
They reneged on the terms of the deal.

No they didn't.

They sure as hell did. They raised the price and reduced the benefits. If a private company tried that, the officers would all go to jail.

It's bankrupt.

No it isn't. The biggest portion of it - OASI - has $2.335 trillion in Treasury assets - UP from last year.


It has no assets. A drawer full of I.O.U.s one branch of the government issued to another branch of the government isn't worth the paper its written on.


OASI also has annual revenues of over 600 billion dollars.

Sorry but its far from bankrupt.

If your revenue isn't sufficient to cover your expenses for any extended period of time, you are bankrupt.
 
GAWD I hate the ridiculous gymnastics needed to pretend that SS is a "good program". It is NOT bankrupt, but it is currently underfunded.

"Underfunded" is a euphemism meaning "bankrupt." In the private sector, when a company is "underfunded" it files for bankruptcy because it can't pay off all its creditors.
 
Poo has a short memory. Remember way back when we were just hours from default? Just what was going to cause that? Who did Obama say wasn't going to get a check? Hmmmm....
 
clevergirl's concern is addressed here. The money is more than sufficient if the Congress would keep its hands off of it, Dem and Pub congresses alike. Leave the funding alone, and the ship will right itself.

They already spent it, so it's too late for that. From this point onwards, expenses will exceed revenues.
 
They reneged on the terms of the deal.

No they didn't.

They sure as hell did. They raised the price and reduced the benefits. If a private company tried that, the officers would all go to jail.

No it isn't. The biggest portion of it - OASI - has $2.335 trillion in Treasury assets - UP from last year.


It has no assets. A drawer full of I.O.U.s one branch of the government issued to another branch of the government isn't worth the paper its written on.


OASI also has annual revenues of over 600 billion dollars.

Sorry but its far from bankrupt.

If your revenue isn't sufficient to cover your expenses for any extended period of time, you are bankrupt.

I understand where you are coming from- but bankrupt is not the best term to define the current projections of SS. There still remain options to fix it. The term insolvent can be applied to SS currently, so long as a fix is not applied...eventually, it could be bankrupt.
 
It's like writing "I Owe Me $1,000,000" on a scrap of paper, stuffing it in a jar and then proclaiming that you have a $1,000,000 retirement fund.

:lol:

BINGO!

I always find it absolutely hysterical whenever some drone claims SS has money in its trust fund. You have to be truly gullible to believe that.
 
I know what insolvent means. I also qualified my statement by underscoring what has to happen in order to make it solvent. This is not mere rhetoric I am espousing. link

OK then - I guess its the word "currently" you don't understand.



All Social Security benefits are paid by the workers - that's the way its always been and always will be.


SS is not an actual fund- it is an accounting device- There is no actual money in SS, merely IOU's. link

U.S. Treasury obligations are the safest dollar denominated asset available other than straight up hard currency. Hard currency doesn't earn interest though.

So while its not "actual money" - neither is most of the money deposited in your savings account, either. All that money is handed out and replaced by IOU's, too. In fact - that's how banking is done.


You are right that it is an accounting device, though, keeps us from having to adjust the FICA tax every fucking year.

To pretend SS is solvent as it is currently projecting funding is irresponsible.
I don't think you know what solvent means.

SS was not set up to be, nor is it supposed to be, a bank- that congress began acting as if it were one is all the more reason to rethink its usefulness. The idea that Treasury bonds are safe was not my point. The point is that T-bills are not able to earn enough rate of return to sustain SS as it is currently funded (see I also know how to use the word currently)because,

Social Security is mostly sustained by revenues from FICA taxation - not interest on treasury obligations.
these T-bills are not used for SS alone, meaning, that it's all a shell game. (since you object to ponzi scheme)

Meaning bla bla bla.... you don't know what the fuck you're even talking about.
 
U.S. Treasury obligations are the safest dollar denominated asset available other than straight up hard currency. Hard currency doesn't earn interest though.

So while its not "actual money" - neither is most of the money deposited in your savings account, either. All that money is handed out and replaced by IOU's, too. In fact - that's how banking is done.


You are right that it is an accounting device, though, keeps us from having to adjust the FICA tax every fucking year.

FICA was adjusted this year...

DOWN actually.

WTH?

Its a temporary 2% cut to put more money in people's hands. Other than that the FICA tax hasn't changed since 1990.
 
Poo has a short memory. Remember way back when we were just hours from default? Just what was going to cause that? Who did Obama say wasn't going to get a check? Hmmmm....

Are you a moron? Do you know what default means? When the Treasury defaults it doesn't pay its debt obligations. Do you remember what's in the SS Trust fund? Treasury obligations.
 
clevergirl's concern is addressed here. The money is more than sufficient if the Congress would keep its hands off of it, Dem and Pub congresses alike. Leave the funding alone, and the ship will right itself.

They already spent it, so it's too late for that. From this point onwards, expenses will exceed revenues.

Actually the OASDI fund increased in balance last year.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top