A Union's View of Social Security

[jasonnfree]

Yes, I do. We have a highly progressive income tax system. Adding 6.2% onto the top rate of 39.6%. There is already a .9% added tax for Medicare. If SS is added to this, the overall federal marginal tax burden is 48%. Add on state income taxes, and the burden is over 50%.

Nobody should be taxed at such a high rate. The only way SS should apply to all earned income is if we move to a low, flat tax.

1. As a starting point: Who is to decide what is fair, and what is too much? Some religions suggest tithing, and government demands taxes.

a. Joseph gathered very much grain: It seems it was customary for Pharaoh to take 10% of the grain in Egypt as a tax. Essentially, Joseph doubled the taxes over the next seven years (Genesis 41:34 mentions one-fifth, that is, 20%).


2. If, as was the case prior to the Imperial Presidency of King Franklin the First, we used the enumerated powers in Article I, section 8, as the rule, taxes could be much lower.

Medieval serfs revolted when their total taxes exceed 1/3 of their income. I'd call that bright line not to cross.

I could understand a serf or a republican punch press operator in a right to work state complaining about high taxes , but the leaders of the revolt are the multibillionaires. The little guy wants a flat tax because he hears how good it is from multibillionaire funded fox news etc. You haven't named a major modern country that has used the flat tax. Why experiment because little stevie forbes likes the flat tax?

 

[Norman]

Yes, monetarily sovereign governments can never run out of the currency they issue, whether it's the US, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc.

Governments usually don't print money, central banks do. But yeah you certainly never run out of cash, however you might just run out of people who accept the currency. In any case that's irrelevant.

I'm talking about the federal government, not a state pensions fund, which can be fixed through a revenue sharing program with the federal government. Side issue.

There isn't a nominal crisis with Social Security.

Accounting rules don't change just because you can print money. Further, you just said there is no such thing as nominal crisis (or lack of money in other words). So I don't see how it's relevant that there is no nominal crsis...

The inconvenient reality is that anything which occurs in the future that has to paid for is an "unfunded liability". The only way we could have literal "unfunded liabilities" is if the US government could run of out of dollars. Is that what you're saying?

No, that's not correct. Unfunded liability is basically a debt to somebody. But I know you are next going to say that debt doesn't exist either.

Again, just because US government can tax and the FED (not the government) can print dollars, doesn't mean that the liability is funded. It means that the government can PAY for those things, but it doesn't mean anything else. For example, a corporation can have unfunded pension liabilities on it's balance sheet. Just because it has had plenty of profits and is in great financial shape to pay those liabilities doesn't mean they don't exist! Do you understand the difference?

In terms of SS, we'd be better off just to abolish the trust fund and pay SS straight out of the general revenue. The very existence of the SS trust fund gives Malthusian nut jobs a target, and the ability to complain whether or not the fund is in a deficit or surplus. In the event the trust fund is projected to be in deficit down the road, we're told Social Security has "unfunded liabilities". This borders on retarded.

Well this is actually something I agree with. Social security should just be welfare, not a pension program and in my opinion there should be a real investment based funded retirement program. But let's not get into all that...

If any and all future spending obligations were in the general fund, and there was a projected deficit at some point in the future, then all the obligations of the federal government would be "unfunded liabilities", including the military, the Pentagon, NASA, farm subsidies, infrastructure, etc. Do you see where I'm going with this?

No, again you are misunderstanding what an unfunded liability is. Unfunded liability is basically a debt that needs to be paid to someone else. The government is not in debt to the military. As long as SS is treated as a promised pension plan there are unfunded liabilities.

No, it doesn't. The Treasury spends bases money into existence, while the FED lends base money into existence. Money creation is inherently a balance sheet operation at the end of the day and should be viewed through a consolidated government model, in terms of interactions between the Treasury and FED.

Well the treasury spends money into existence as much as I spend money into existence when shopping in a store. That is completely backwards definition of what is actually happening and what the treasury does. The FED can loan to whoever it wants to, and buy whatever it so desires via open market operations. (Well ok, there are limits, but certainly the FED can operate outside of government).

Yes, there are federal liabilities, in the form of currency and bonds, which are assets for the public. For every liability, there is a corresponding asset. The nature of the assets even change between the private sector and government sector when funds are shifted between reserve accounts and US securities.

The SS could be defined as an asset to the public. They are defined a benefit that they recieve upon retirement. It's just like any other classic defined benefit pension plan. Of course, individuals don't have balance sheets so this also becomes kind of irrelevant.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are four problems with that suggestion:

1. Social Security has an insurance element. A part of your tax goes to fund disability and survivor benefits. For a worker at peak earning years, this is the equivalent of a disability policy and a life insurance policy of about $450,000 each. Private insurance could be used in conjunction with an alternative retirement system, but I have never seen proponents of such a system factor in the insurance costs BEFORE making their claims of how much better of an investment the alternative is.

2. Social Security has a subsidy element. The two inflection points in the benefit formula result in low income workers having higher relative benefits than higher income workers. Alternative systems usually ignore this and do not factor in an equivalent subsidy.

3. Social Security does not create property rights, private plans do. When a person dies, all benefits other than survivors and the $255 burial allowance terminate, and no matter how much a worker has paid in, his family has no property rights outside of those benefits. In the private alternatives, heirs get the remaining balance in any accounts.

4. Investment risk and expense is transferred to the participant. Under Social Security, the participant does not bear these expenses and risks. While intellectually we might be OK with letting grandma starve if she invests unwisely, I doubt that when the time comes we will let that happen.

I have not seen a proposal that addresses these problems meaningfully, and the partial analyses I have seen were not very palatable to the employees. This is why union busting is so important to employers. They can save money if they can reduce their Social Security contributions and shift the expenses and risks onto the employees. This is a lot easier in unorganized labor markets.

I think privatization of Social Security is a great idea as long as the government makes up any losses people might have.

Privatization of SS would be a disaster. It's one of the worst ideas in a long line of horrendous ideas. First of all, the right-wing reactionary idea of phasing in privatisation wouldn't protect Americans from market volatility or a crash. The crash of 2008 would have wiped our roughly about 60% of retirement 'investors' holdings.

You wrongly assume that all holdings would be in equities. As one nears retirement age one should move out of equities into a capital preservation not capital growth strategy.

I don't think the vast majority of Americans want to turn over management of their financial assets for retirement over to Wall Street. We'd be giving the program's revenue stream over to the Wall Street crew. Just from doing some cursory math, brokers would get around $300 billion in commissions from this government subsidy.

Who has to turn over anything? You can go on line and buy your own stocks and bonds. If you want you could put 100% of your money into US treasuries.

There isn't SS problem, it's a con job by the political class. All we have to do is have Congress guarantee funding into perpetuity. This can be done the same way as Medicare part B and D.

The entire SS 'debate' is based on how a federal liability is an asset to the public. This whole debate omits that there are corresponding assets so to speak. The wealth of social security of the US population is as real as the federal liabilities which support it. The assets which comprise the payroll tax revenue of the US government are a liability for all us, the same way any federal liabilities are an asset for the US public.

Every single scenario I have run on what my retirement account would look like if I had control of my money and not the morons in Washington tells me that I would be able to retire before I was 55 and have plenty of money to live on.

Social Security is forced dependence.

 

[Kimura]

Governments usually don't print money, central banks do. But yeah you certainly never run out of cash, however you might just run out of people who accept the currency. In any case that's irrelevant.

And a central bank is ultimately part of the government, such as the Board of Governors of the Fed.

No, that's not correct. Unfunded liability is basically a debt to somebody. But I know you are next going to say that debt doesn't exist either

No, again you are misunderstanding what an unfunded liability is. Unfunded liability is basically a debt that needs to be paid to someone else. The government is not in debt to the military. As long as SS is treated as a promised pension plan there are unfunded liabilities.

Define the debt. You keep mentioning accounting practices, that’s important. US public debt is essentially private wealth and interest payments are deemed private income. All this means is the 16 trillion is debt is simply a representation of all the accrued budget deficits. It’s double entry bookkeeping at the end of the day. The US will ALWAYS be able to service its debts.

Again, just because US government can tax and the FED (not the government) can print dollars, doesn't mean that the liability is funded. It means that the government can PAY for those things, but it doesn't mean anything else. For example, a corporation can have unfunded pension liabilities on it's balance sheet. Just because it has had plenty of profits and is in great financial shape to pay those liabilities doesn't mean they don't exist! Do you understand the difference?

You can’t compare a corporation or household to a monetarily sovereign government. The currency issuer plays by a different set of rules than the currency user.

Secondly, all spending is “printing money” under a fiat monetary system. Government deficits create net financial assets which are then added to the private sector. Taxes, on the other hand, at least on the federal level, don’t fund any expenditures. Taxes serve to a) regulate aggregate demand b) help create demand for the national unit of account.

What people seemed confused about institutional arrangements left over from the gold standard, such as the issuance of US Treasury securities, which makes the general public actually think that debt funds government spending. These arrangements still exist, mostly for political reasons, not for any operational reasons in the least. Under a fiat system, in point of fact, all spending precedes a) taxation and b) “borrowing”, since all these things are done with money that is already spent so to speak.

Well this is actually something I agree with. Social security should just be welfare, not a pension program and in my opinion there should be a real investment based funded retirement program. But let's not get into all that...

You can fund it through general revenue; we don’t even need the trust fund. It’s that simple. All the government is doing is debiting and crediting account to make payments to retirees, the disabled, etc. We could even double the payments without a problem.

Well the treasury spends money into existence as much as I spend money into existence when shopping in a store. That is completely backwards definition of what is actually happening and what the treasury does. The FED can loan to whoever it wants to, and buy whatever it so desires via open market operations. (Well ok, there are limits, but certainly the FED can operate outside of government).

No, they don’t. We have to operate on a fixed amount dollars. The federal government has no such constraints and we can’t issue our own currency and make it mandatory for people to pay their tax liabilities with said currency. Our supply of dollars is limited; the federal government’s supply of dollars boils down to policy decisions.

The Treasury spends base money into existence; however, the FED does remit any profits to the Treasury. The federal government basically spends by crediting private bank account or cutting a Treasury check. For the sake of argument, we shouldn’t differentiate between the FED and Treasury. All the Treasury does is write a claim on itself when it writes a check against its FED account. As a matter of accounting, when this occurs, there’s a change in the amount of reserve balances.

Under a fiat monetary system, all the government spending is printing money. We can’t escape this operational reality. Bonds aren’t a prerequisite for the Treasury to credit commercial bank accounts. Bonds primary function are to drain any excess reserves from the banking system.

 

[Norman]

And a central bank is ultimately part of the government, such as the Board of Governors of the Fed.

No it's not. The FED is owned by the banks and they pay interest on the invested capital. Also, may I ask which countrie's ownership would the ECB be in?

Define the debt. You keep mentioning accounting practices, that’s important. US public debt is essentially private wealth and interest payments are deemed private income. All this means is the 16 trillion is debt is simply a representation of all the accrued budget deficits. It’s double entry bookkeeping at the end of the day. The US will ALWAYS be able to service its debts.

First of all there is no guarantee that US can always pay it's debts. If the fed refuses to lend to the government and no taxes are collected then that's a default. But of course the real question is what happens when people lose interest in the dollar.

You can’t compare a corporation or household to a monetarily sovereign government. The currency issuer plays by a different set of rules than the currency user.

Secondly, all spending is “printing money” under a fiat monetary system. Government deficits create net financial assets which are then added to the private sector. Taxes, on the other hand, at least on the federal level, don’t fund any expenditures. Taxes serve to a) regulate aggregate demand b) help create demand for the national unit of account.

No, all spending is NOT "printing money". How many times does this have to be said. Are you a troll? What you are saying is complete nonsense. And no, no one thinks of taxes as regulating aggregate demand, or as creating demand for the currency. Yes you could say that in a money printer centric universe, but NO ONE uses those crazy definitions IMO for a good reason. Where are you getting this stuff?

What people seemed confused about institutional arrangements left over from the gold standard, such as the issuance of US Treasury securities, which makes the general public actually think that debt funds government spending. These arrangements still exist, mostly for political reasons, not for any operational reasons in the least. Under a fiat system, in point of fact, all spending precedes a) taxation and b) “borrowing”, since all these things are done with money that is already spent so to speak.

The debt does fund the government. Why else would you collect it? Guess what, your utopia of printing endless quantity of money is unfortunately a TAX. And to avoid that tax you have to get more debt from other entities than the central bank. Now you know why you can't fund everything via printing money.

You can fund it through general revenue; we don’t even need the trust fund. It’s that simple. All the government is doing is debiting and crediting account to make payments to retirees, the disabled, etc. We could even double the payments without a problem.

Yeah... Except for the doubling. It's very difficult to even fund the current scheme doubling the payments would be an economic armageddon.

No, they don’t. We have to operate on a fixed amount dollars. The federal government has no such constraints and we can’t issue our own currency and make it mandatory for people to pay their tax liabilities with said currency. Our supply of dollars is limited; the federal government’s supply of dollars boils down to policy decisions.

Again you are equating the government with the fed. The fed can loan money to whoever it wants. Anyone can be "spending" that money into existance. I am getting pretty tired of repeating the same things over and over. The fact is the FED "prints" the money not the government, not me and certainly not you.

The Treasury spends base money into existence; however, the FED does remit any profits to the Treasury. The federal government basically spends by crediting private bank account or cutting a Treasury check. For the sake of argument, we shouldn’t differentiate between the FED and Treasury. All the Treasury does is write a claim on itself when it writes a check against its FED account. As a matter of accounting, when this occurs, there’s a change in the amount of reserve balances.

Well, the FED pays profits to the owners as well if you want to be accurate about it. Anyway this is all irrelevant.

Under a fiat monetary system, all the government spending is printing money. We can’t escape this operational reality. Bonds aren’t a prerequisite for the Treasury to credit commercial bank accounts. Bonds primary function are to drain any excess reserves from the banking system.

And no, you are wrong. For the 1000th time. Government can fund it's spending via taxation, printing or burrowing. Merely spending money is not the same as printing it. How hard can this possibly be to understand?



Anyway I am done with you again for the next 3 months. My bet is that you are in fact trolling here. All I can say is that no, printing money is not a magic wand that just makes things appear out of nowhere.

 

[Rshermr]

And a central bank is ultimately part of the government, such as the Board of Governors of the Fed.

No it's not. The FED is owned by the banks and they pay interest on the invested capital. Also, may I ask which countrie's ownership would the ECB be in?
No, it is not. Where did you get the idea that the fed is owned by the banks? Here, read this:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12798.htm

Define the debt. You keep mentioning accounting practices, that’s important. US public debt is essentially private wealth and interest payments are deemed private income. All this means is the 16 trillion is debt is simply a representation of all the accrued budget deficits. It’s double entry bookkeeping at the end of the day. The US will ALWAYS be able to service its debts.

First of all there is no guarantee that US can always pay it's debts. If the fed refuses to lend to the government and no taxes are collected then that's a default. But of course the real question is what happens when people lose interest in the dollar.
JESUS!!! You are suggesting that the largest economy in the world can not pay it's debts???????



No, all spending is NOT "printing money". How many times does this have to be said. Are you a troll? What you are saying is complete nonsense. And no, no one thinks of taxes as regulating aggregate demand, or as creating demand for the currency. Yes you could say that in a money printer centric universe, but NO ONE uses those crazy definitions IMO for a good reason. Where are you getting this stuff?
I can not wait. Where, in a fiat system, did you think money came from??? Trees??? Spews from volcano's??? Just wondering.



The debt does fund the government. Why else would you collect it? Guess what, your utopia of printing endless quantity of money is unfortunately a TAX. And to avoid that tax you have to get more debt from other entities than the central bank. Now you know why you can't fund everything via printing money.
JESUS!!! So, apparently you believe that the amount of money is static. Then there will never be a reason to print money. The economy will be in the tank. Completely. JESUS!!!




Yeah... Except for the doubling. It's very difficult to even fund the current scheme doubling the payments would be an economic armageddon.
And the beat goes on. No it will not. It has not, and will not. You need to listen, instead of voicing an opinion void of understanding.




Again you are equating the government with the fed. The fed can loan money to whoever it wants. Anyone can be "spending" that money into existance. I am getting pretty tired of repeating the same things over and over. The fact is the FED "prints" the money not the government, not me and certainly not you.
Then stop repeating and at least try to understand.

The Treasury spends base money into existence; however, the FED does remit any profits to the Treasury. The federal government basically spends by crediting private bank account or cutting a Treasury check. For the sake of argument, we shouldn’t differentiate between the FED and Treasury. All the Treasury does is write a claim on itself when it writes a check against its FED account. As a matter of accounting, when this occurs, there’s a change in the amount of reserve balances.

Well, the FED pays profits to the owners as well if you want to be accurate about it. Anyway this is all irrelevant.

Under a fiat monetary system, all the government spending is printing money. We can’t escape this operational reality. Bonds aren’t a prerequisite for the Treasury to credit commercial bank accounts. Bonds primary function are to drain any excess reserves from the banking system.

And no, you are wrong. For the 1000th time. Government can fund it's spending via taxation, printing or burrowing. Merely spending money is not the same as printing it. How hard can this possibly be to understand?
Apparently hard enough that you can not get it.



Anyway I am done with you again for the next 3 months. My bet is that you are in fact trolling here. All I can say is that no, printing money is not a magic wand that just makes things appear out of nowhere.

Which is not what he said. Perhaps a remedial reading class would help.
I see why you would run. I never saw a more completely wrong economic analysis. Go, before you are toast.

 

[Norman]

I see why you would run. I never saw a more completely wrong economic analysis. Go, before you are toast.

I am not wondering at all why you are not bothering to reply. It's because you have no clue.

Please point out the mistakes... oops you can't. You juse dole out insults because you happen to be a blinded by ideology liberal.

 

[Kimura]

And a central bank is ultimately part of the government, such as the Board of Governors of the Fed.

No it's not. The FED is owned by the banks and they pay interest on the invested capital. Also, may I ask which countrie's ownership would the ECB be in?

Define the debt. You keep mentioning accounting practices, that’s important. US public debt is essentially private wealth and interest payments are deemed private income. All this means is the 16 trillion is debt is simply a representation of all the accrued budget deficits. It’s double entry bookkeeping at the end of the day. The US will ALWAYS be able to service its debts.

First of all there is no guarantee that US can always pay it's debts. If the fed refuses to lend to the government and no taxes are collected then that's a default. But of course the real question is what happens when people lose interest in the dollar.



No, all spending is NOT "printing money". How many times does this have to be said. Are you a troll? What you are saying is complete nonsense. And no, no one thinks of taxes as regulating aggregate demand, or as creating demand for the currency. Yes you could say that in a money printer centric universe, but NO ONE uses those crazy definitions IMO for a good reason. Where are you getting this stuff?



The debt does fund the government. Why else would you collect it? Guess what, your utopia of printing endless quantity of money is unfortunately a TAX. And to avoid that tax you have to get more debt from other entities than the central bank. Now you know why you can't fund everything via printing money.




Yeah... Except for the doubling. It's very difficult to even fund the current scheme doubling the payments would be an economic armageddon.




Again you are equating the government with the fed. The fed can loan money to whoever it wants. Anyone can be "spending" that money into existance. I am getting pretty tired of repeating the same things over and over. The fact is the FED "prints" the money not the government, not me and certainly not you.

The Treasury spends base money into existence; however, the FED does remit any profits to the Treasury. The federal government basically spends by crediting private bank account or cutting a Treasury check. For the sake of argument, we shouldn’t differentiate between the FED and Treasury. All the Treasury does is write a claim on itself when it writes a check against its FED account. As a matter of accounting, when this occurs, there’s a change in the amount of reserve balances.

Well, the FED pays profits to the owners as well if you want to be accurate about it. Anyway this is all irrelevant.

Under a fiat monetary system, all the government spending is printing money. We can’t escape this operational reality. Bonds aren’t a prerequisite for the Treasury to credit commercial bank accounts. Bonds primary function are to drain any excess reserves from the banking system.

And no, you are wrong. For the 1000th time. Government can fund it's spending via taxation, printing or burrowing. Merely spending money is not the same as printing it. How hard can this possibly be to understand?

Anyway I am done with you again for the next 3 months. My bet is that you are in fact trolling here. All I can say is that no, printing money is not a magic wand that just makes things appear out of nowhere.

I'm going to keep this short and simple.

The US doesn't borrow. From whom does it borrow? China? Well, China has a reserve account over at the FED it uses to buy US Treasuries. The dollars in said reserve account must have been spent into existence by the government at some point. The US government doesn't need to borrow that which it freely issues as the monopoly issuer of the currency. Any and all bond purchases and tax payments occur with money that is already spent. If this wasn't so, there wouldn't be any dollars to buy US Treasuries or make any tax payments.

You seem to love "accounting", so we're going to use some accounting logic. I said that spending precedes tax payments and borrowing. If we add loans from the Federal Reserve to my statement, then I'm 100% correct. Taxes paid to the Treasury and and bond settlements can only happen through banks reserve accounts. The primary source of balances in reserve accounts are from PREVIOUS government deficits, which are comprised of loans from the Federal Reserve or credits to reserve accounts. The loans from the FED are facilitated by repos, overdrafts, loans or through the purchase of private securities. Therefore, in order for tax payments and bonds sales to get settled, there had to have been previous government spending at some point down the line.

 

[Rshermr]

I see why you would run. I never saw a more completely wrong economic analysis. Go, before you are toast.

I am not wondering at all why you are not bothering to reply. It's because you have no clue.

Please point out the mistakes... oops you can't. You juse dole out insults because you happen to be a blinded by ideology liberal.

I did. Just imagine if you could read.
By the way, what is "juse"?
And, by the way, you said you were done. I will let Kimura respond to what you posted regarding his post. If he prefers to leave you alone, I will be happy to explain a few of your idiocies. You see, dipshit, I am not a lib, I just like the truth. Perhaps you could start by finding a source or two to back your accusations. Though, of course, you will not.

 

[Norman]

No, it is not. Where did you get the idea that the fed is owned by the banks? Here, read this:
FRB: Is the Federal Reserve accountable to anyone?

Have you read your link? Anyway, it actually appears that the FED is not technically owned by the member banks, they just own the stocks. So I guess I used technically incorrect term here. At least I can admit when I am wrong... Which seem to be impossible to you two, who keep spouting this nonsense even after years and years of being called on your mistakes.

JESUS!!! You are suggesting that the largest economy in the world can not pay it's debts???????

No, I am saying that the most indebted economy in the world may not be able to do that. Do you remember sometime ago everyone was worried the US government was going to default due to the debt ceiling issues?

If the FED prints money there is no reason that it wouldn't be possible for US government to pay it's debts from monetary stand point. However, that may not be a popular option amongst the debtors and others who suffer from the inflation.

I can not wait. Where, in a fiat system, did you think money came from??? Trees??? Spews from volcano's??? Just wondering.

From the FED and bank credit. You can't call spending money printing it. Those actions are on the different side of the balance sheet for starters. One is a source of revenue and the other is an expense.

JESUS!!! So, apparently you believe that the amount of money is static. Then there will never be a reason to print money. The economy will be in the tank. Completely. JESUS!!!

Troll troll troll I roll roll roll. Where did I say that? I only said that not all spending is printing money. Your extreme troll stance probably means you disagree with me and think all spending is printing.

And the beat goes on. No it will not. It has not, and will not. You need to listen, instead of voicing an opinion void of understanding.

Yeah right. I wonder in which fantasy you live in. The retirement benefits as % of economy just keep growing and growing. But you could easily double them, no problem there!

Apparently hard enough that you can not get it.

So all spending is in fact printing money. Got it...


Done with you as well. It's obvious you are not interested in rational discussion but rather in trolling and repeating your biased viewpoint ad infinitum.

 

[Rshermr]

No, it is not. Where did you get the idea that the fed is owned by the banks? Here, read this:
FRB: Is the Federal Reserve accountable to anyone?

Have you read your link? Anyway, it actually appears that the FED is not technically owned by the member banks, they just own the stocks. So I guess I used technically incorrect term here. At least I can admit when I am wrong... Which seem to be impossible to you two, who keep spouting this nonsense even after years and years of being called on your mistakes.

"Yes, me boy, I did indeed read it. Technically incorrect, you say??? How about completely incorrect. I was sure you would try to lie your way through this one. So, the article clearly says that the FED is not owned by banks. If the 12 banks owned stock in the normal sense of the word, they would, in fact, own the FED. So, you took the following and distorted it:
"The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan."
Now, that is a really really simple paragraph to understand should you care to. You obviously do not. Because you:
1. Want to believe what you want to believe.
2. Are willing to lie to get your (untrue) point across.
Integrity is not your strong suit, is it now, Norman.

JESUS!!! You are suggesting that the largest economy in the world can not pay it's debts???????

Ho, I am saying that the most indebted economy in the world may not be able to do that. Do you remember sometime ago everyone was worried the US government was going to default due to the debt ceiling issues?

HO what??? Right. Who is it that you think the us gov is going to have to repay??? Can you name a time when the us gov has ever had to repay it's debt?? Are you at all aware of what the debt ceiling is???? Do you have any idea of what caused it??? Do you know who created that problem??? And whatever the debt is, we can have that problem if some brain dead politicians want to cause the problem again??? But then, they could all go out an shoot the citizenry, should they so desire. You can not stop stupidity. As you prove in the things you say.

If the FED prints money there is no reason that it wouldn't be possible for US government to pay it's debts from monetary stand point. However, that may not be a popular option amongst the debtors and others who suffer from the inflation.

Please, do go try to understand inflation before you make a fool of yourself. Come to think of it, I should add an again to that sentence.

From the FED and bank credit. You can't call spending money printing it. Those actions are on the different side of the balance sheet for starters. One is a source of revenue and the other is an expense.

Troll troll troll I roll roll roll. Where did I say that? I only said that not all spending is printing money. Your extreme troll stance probably means you disagree with me and think all spending is printing.

That has been carefully and respectfully explained to you. At least twice. By someone with a very solid graduate education in economics. Who works in the field. But you must be able to learn. And you lack that capability. Go read more con dogma. Then you can post more. Must be nice to simply believe what you want. So much less trouble than learning anything.

And the beat goes on. No it will not. It has not, and will not. You need to listen, instead of voicing an opinion void of understanding.

Yeah right. I wonder in which fantasy you live in. The retirement benefits as % of economy just keep growing and growing. But you could easily double them, no problem there!

Funny how you forgot the link to prove that statement. Which would be hard, since it is a lie. Assuming that you are talking about social security insurance benefits. Which is not clear from your sentence. So we should assume you are not talking about private retirement benefits. See if you can understand this simple paragraph:
"The share of GDP devoted to Federal SSI expenditures increased slightly after 2000, partly because of a slowdown in economic growth over that period, but resumed its very gradual downward trend from 2002 to 2007 due to relatively slower growth in the number of SSI recipients. Beginning in 2008, however, this trend reversed due to an increase in program recipients and a temporary decline in nominal GDP during the economic recession. As the economy recovers, we project the gradual downward trend to resume. This ultimate trend is the net effect of two factors. First, we project that Federal SSI expenditures, after adjusting for growth in prices, will grow roughly in line with the population (see section IV.C). This estimate follows from our projection that the estimated prevalence rate for the SSI recipient population will stay fairly level during the projection period, showing only a slight decline during this period. Second, using the 2013 Trustees Report intermediate assumptions, we project that the effect of the real growth in GDP following the recent economic downturn will be greater than the effect of projected increases in SSI recipients. Accordingly, we project that Federal SSI payments will decline as a percentage of GDP throughout the projection period, until it reaches 0.23 percent of GDP by 2037."
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ssir/SSI13/IV_D_GDP.html
Do you even have a clue of what Social Security Insurance is??? Do you know that as a % of GDP it has ranged from about .2% to .33% of gdp?? It is now at about .3% and decreasing. That is, for your understanding, less than 1/3 of a percent. And declining. Why do you like to base arguments on lies? And on insignificant issues?? Without any understanding of the economic impacts of the issue you are lying about??? Do you like wasting peoples time when they read your drivel??

Apparently hard enough that you can not get it.

So all spending is in fact printing money. Got it...


Done with you as well. It's obvious you are not interested in rational discussion but rather in trolling and repeating your biased viewpoint ad infinitum.

Translated, meaning, I have no real argument.

Funny how con tools project. Not a biased viewpoint at all. Simply the truth. But please enlighten me. What the hell is "infinitum"?

What is your economics education?? Any at all?? Crackerjacks box??

 

[Kimura]

The FED conspiracy nonsense is getting really, really, really, really annoying. Yes, for the umpteenth time, the member banks of each district privately own each of the twelve banks. And for the umpteenth time, at the risk of sounding redundant, the publicly appointed Board of Governors controls the member banks. By law, through legislation way back when, they must execute the monetary policy of the federal government. The FED also rebates all of its “profits” to the government each and every year like clockwork.

In terms of the hierarchy, each FED bank is owned by member banks in each district. However, people and non-banks aren’t permitted to own any shares in a FED banks.
We’ve got a hierarchy of member banks, FED banks, and the Baord of Governors from the bottom up. Member banks are at the bottom of the totem pole, which consist of commercial banks that have joined the Federal Reserve. According to the law, all charted banks have to join, except if they are state charted, in which case they have a choice. Once a bank joins, it becomes a shareholder so to speak in one of the regional FED banks.

Lastly, to the chagrin of the FED conspiracy morons, why in God’s name would the member banks be at the bottom of the hierarchical structure of the FED? They are shareholders, except not in the classical sense, such as owning a block of Apple, Cisco, etc. They have zero control over how their respective FED regional bank operates, nor do they have input or control over monetary policy in the United States. Sure, they get to select six out of nine regional directors, but who cares at the end of the day? These directors are basically glorified bank managers, overseeing daily operations, etc. They have nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with monetary policy which is carried out by the Board of Governors.

 

[Rshermr]

Nice explanation. However, the conspiracy theorists are driven by money pushing an agenda. That is as far as these theorists go. They are NOT interested in truth. Not interested in reading, much less studying, the information available. They simply WANT to believe. An odd phenomenon. But it is the case. They want to be angry. They want to believe what they are told. And they actually think that they are very very smart.

I spent a couple of months reading all I could on the phenomenon. It has been studied A LOT. And all the studies come up with the same results. One of which is these ignorant people are the most vociferous about their beliefs which are most often wrong. And informed people are less sure of themselves, because they know how much they do not know, and that they could be wrong about anything. Ignorant people want to believe an agenda, and do not get upset when they are lied to. Intelligent people do not like agenda's and will not be lied to.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lastly, to the chagrin of the FED conspiracy morons,

the Fed is the result of a liberal conspiracy that seeks to control the economy the way liberals want to control everything. They believe their intentions are good even as they drive the country into deeper and deeper decline as they detach the economy more and more from the free market into liberal la la land .

 

[Kimura]

Lastly, to the chagrin of the FED conspiracy morons,

the Fed is the result of a liberal conspiracy that seeks to control the economy the way liberals want to control everything. They believe their intentions are good even as they drive the country into deeper and deeper decline as they detach the economy more and more from the free market into liberal la la land .

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lastly, to the chagrin of the FED conspiracy morons,

the Fed is the result of a liberal conspiracy that seeks to control the economy the way liberals want to control everything. They believe their intentions are good even as they drive the country into deeper and deeper decline as they detach the economy more and more from the free market into liberal la la land .

the Fed is the result of a liberal conspiracy that seeks to control the economy the way liberals want to control everything. They believe their intentions are good even as they drive the country into deeper and deeper decline by detaching the economy more and more from the free market into liberal la la land .

 

[Rshermr]

Huh??? Is Liberal La LA land near Conservative LA LA land, where you live???

 

[oldfart]

By the way, what is "juse"?

"Juse" is a state of being when you are "burrowing" for money. For example, in "Paint Your Wagon" they sing "The Best Things in Life are Dirty" while burrowing under the saloon to get the gold dust that falls through the floorboards.

 

[oldfart]

Huh??? Is Liberal La LA land near Conservative LA LA land, where you live???

Liberal LaLa land is next door to the 60's Maoist compound where if you bring beer for the potluck dinner they pass you the joint. Just don't drink the home-made wine, it doubles for drain cleaner.

 

[Rshermr]

the Fed is the result of a liberal conspiracy that seeks to control the economy the way liberals want to control everything. They believe their intentions are good even as they drive the country into deeper and deeper decline as they detach the economy more and more from the free market into liberal la la land .

the Fed is the result of a liberal conspiracy that seeks to control the economy the way liberals want to control everything. They believe their intentions are good even as they drive the country into deeper and deeper decline by detaching the economy more and more from the free market into liberal la la land .

Perfect timing. And here is ed, a fed conspiracy moron in the flesh!!!!