Privatize % of SS ?

[Charles_Main]

Sorry, but a mentally deficient Monkey could do better investing than the SS fund does.

Privatize at least part of it.

Ya.....great idea.

The Pew Survey has found that 52% of people over 50 years old are considering retiring later than 65 years old, and 68% of people over 57 years old are considering retiring later. This is because 59% of them have lost over 40% in their stock market accounts.

Baby Boomers Delaying Retirement | Wade Dokken, Ron Carson, Tom Hamlin, Lincoln Collins, etc on Fixed Index Annuities Investments of the annuity | Wade Dokken | annuities,guaranteed withdrawal benefits,lifetime income,index annuities,guarantee of pri

So what is your grand idea? To continue to have a fund with Billions in it. Make 1% return? While being raped by the government to fund the General budget most of the time?

You are ignoring the fact that most of those people who lost 40% have been seeing gains toward getting it back lately. Compare how the stock market has performed to the return we have gotten on the SS fund, and any rational person would have to conclude that private investment is much better.

Please.

Allowing younger workers to privatize part of their SS is a very good idea.

Your cute little emoticon does not change that fact, it just exposes your ignorance, and closed mindedness.

 

[DaGoose]

Sorry, but a mentally deficient Monkey could do better investing than the SS fund does.

Privatize at least part of it.

Ya.....great idea.

The Pew Survey has found that 52% of people over 50 years old are considering retiring later than 65 years old, and 68% of people over 57 years old are considering retiring later. This is because 59% of them have lost over 40% in their stock market accounts.

Baby Boomers Delaying Retirement | Wade Dokken, Ron Carson, Tom Hamlin, Lincoln Collins, etc on Fixed Index Annuities Investments of the annuity | Wade Dokken | annuities,guaranteed withdrawal benefits,lifetime income,index annuities,guarantee of pri

So what is your grand idea? To continue to have a fund with Billions in it. Make 1% return? While being raped by the government to fund the General budget most of the time?

You are ignoring the fact that most of those people who lost 40% have been seeing gains toward getting it back lately. Compare how the stock market has performed to the return we have gotten on the SS fund, and any rational person would have to conclude that private investment is much better.

Please.

Allowing younger workers to privatize part of their SS is a very good idea.

Your cute little emoticon does not change that fact, it just exposes your ignorance, and closed mindedness.

Have you ever heard of "bloodletting"? It was the withdrawal blood from a patient to cure or prevent illness and disease. That's what privatization is.

The way it is set up is that it requires incoming funds. If you reduce those funds (bloodletting) then it speeds up insolvency.

Geez, it's only 4.2%. If you can't save and invest on your own outside of that then SS was made for people exactly like you!!

And BTW.....it will probably take many years to recover both the 40% and what was not gained during the Bush recession.

 

[Flopper]

So what would you have Social Security do? Hold all the payroll tax revenues in cash, and make essentially no return on it?

I say yes to that. The government cannot "invest" in itself to then provide a return to itself any more than any other person or group can. Therefore it has no option but to either invest externally or hold the assets with no return. That's why Social Security needs to be scaled back to the point of being a means tested safety net only instead of a faux insurance policy/retirement plan/investment.

Other then eliminating social security, the best thing to do is "pay as you go" where receipts = payout so the money actually stays in the economy.

If there is no action by Congress before the trust fund is used up, about 2040 then S.S. checks will be reduce by about 25% so all the FICA taxes collected will be used to make payments.

 

[Flopper]

Sorry, but a mentally deficient Monkey could do better investing than the SS fund does.

Privatize at least part of it.

I see the major obstacle to privatization is that in about 18 years there will be nothing to invest. Once the fund is gone, all the S.S. taxes must be used to pay benefits so I think privatization will be a mute point.

 

[kaz]

I say yes to that. The government cannot "invest" in itself to then provide a return to itself any more than any other person or group can. Therefore it has no option but to either invest externally or hold the assets with no return. That's why Social Security needs to be scaled back to the point of being a means tested safety net only instead of a faux insurance policy/retirement plan/investment.

Other then eliminating social security, the best thing to do is "pay as you go" where receipts = payout so the money actually stays in the economy.

If there is no action by Congress before the trust fund is used up, about 2040 then S.S. checks will be reduce by about 25% so all the FICA taxes collected will be used to make payments.

That would be nice...if there were a trust fund

 

[Skull Pilot]

double standard? still stuck with the alarmist mentality?

fact: The US government does what it does with the consent of the American people. If you have issues with the present form of government say so. I do and I say so.

Legal and ethical are two very distinct standards. just thought you'd like to know

I vote for anyone who says they'll trash SS but all you sheep out there who have fallen for the government is looking out for you bullshit outnumber me.

Tell me. would you like your employer to use your retirement contributions to pay the benefits of people that retired before you started working there?

If not then why would you support the ******* government doing the exact same thing?

And I guess it doesn't matter to you that we'd all be able to retire wealthier if you kept the money the ******* government takes to fund the Ponzi scam.

Wow.....where to start.

1) It's NOT a Ponzi Scheme.

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? - BusinessWeek

Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme - Jan. 7, 2009

The parallels are enough for me.

American Thinker: The Social Security Ponzi scheme

2) I'll vote for anyone who says that SS must be kept the way it is even if we have to raise taxes to do it.

What can I say, you're an idiot. My money is better kept in my hands than in the hands of the ******* morons in DC.

3) I'll be retiring plenty wealthy and the piddly ass 4.2% that the government deducts from my paycheck doesn't even factor in. But SS is also cheap insurance that ensures that even if I lose all my money I will have some type of income.

The 2% reduction that you have such a hard on for is temporary

For the past 20 years employees have had 7.65% deducted from their pay for SS and medicare Taxes. That is matched by their employer for a total of 15.3%
. Self employed people pay the entire 15.3%

4) Instead of crying about 4.2% you should try investing some of your money so you won't be so reliant on your Social Security.

FICA Tax

I'm sure I already save more than you. My wife and I currently max out our retirement plan our business provides, 33K per year, we max out our Roth contributions, 10K per year, and we have an investment portfolio that we add $1000 a month to dedicated for retirement. That does not include income from rental properties that will continue after we retire.

If I had been able to keep the money the government confiscated for SS, I'd be retired already.

5) I believe SS will be there beyond my lifetime. Why? Because MORE THAT 90% of people under 30 consider it to be an important government program.

So no matter what you say SS ain't goin nowhere...

As long as there are sheep to be led to slaughter, it won't. But I at least can vote to end the scam as long as I live and work to better people's lives by allowing them to keep more of their own money. And that's exactly what I'll do.

 

[DaGoose]

The parallels are enough for me.

Translated: "Ok, it's a lie."

For the past 20 years employees have had 7.65% deducted from their pay for SS and medicare Taxes. That is matched by their employer for a total of 15.3%
. Self employed people pay the entire 15.3%

And for that you get GUARANTEED income for life. Most people are NOT self-employed though. And, believe it or not, small businesses go belly up as well. But at least their SS will be there for them in their old age.

I'm sure I already save more than you. My wife and I currently max out our retirement plan our business provides, 33K per year, we max out our Roth contributions, 10K per year, and we have an investment portfolio that we add $1000 a month to dedicated for retirement. That does not include income from rental properties that will continue after we retire.
If I had been able to keep the money the government confiscated for SS, I'd be retired already.

Well if you have been doing that over the same amount of years as I have then (no matter what you have been doing with SS) you should have plenty to retire on NOW, unless you got your ass kicked with your investments like most of us during the Bush recession.

As long as there are sheep to be led to slaughter, it won't. But I at least can vote to end the scam as long as I live and work to better people's lives by allowing them to keep more of their own money. And that's exactly what I'll do.

That means 90% of those under 30 are sheep. When you are in that much of a minority then you need to look back and review your stance.

And don't forget, SS is currently keeping MILLIONS of seniors above the poverty level. I'm quite certain they would argue with you too.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The parallels are enough for me.

Translated: "Ok, it's a lie."

So you think. the government lies to you every day but that's OK right?

For the past 20 years employees have had 7.65% deducted from their pay for SS and medicare Taxes. That is matched by their employer for a total of 15.3%
. Self employed people pay the entire 15.3%

And for that you get GUARANTEED income for life. Most people are NOT self-employed though. And, believe it or not, small businesses go belly up as well. But at least their SS will be there for them in their old age.

And if people had control over the extra 15% the government confiscates they'd have a larger income for life. If you're worried about a guarantee then fund an annuity with the 15% of your income and you'll have a guaranteed income for life when you retire and it will be a higher income.

You can get an annuity with a guaranteed 4% right now. That's 4 times the return you get from the ******* government.

And a business might go belly up but if you saved, then the money remains when the business is gone. And then you either get a job or start another business.

I'm sure I already save more than you. My wife and I currently max out our retirement plan our business provides, 33K per year, we max out our Roth contributions, 10K per year, and we have an investment portfolio that we add $1000 a month to dedicated for retirement. That does not include income from rental properties that will continue after we retire.
If I had been able to keep the money the government confiscated for SS, I'd be retired already.

Well if you have been doing that over the same amount of years as I have then (no matter what you have been doing with SS) you should have plenty to retire on NOW, unless you got your ass kicked with your investments like most of us during the Bush recession.

I have not retired because I have a specific amount to have saved in my plan. If I had control over the 15% of my income stolen for SS then I would have already reached that number.

If you haven't noticed the stock market has recovered and if you took a long view and didn't panic and sell everything you'd be better off than you were two years ago. If you were smart and kept buying when stocks were on sale you did great the past 2 years.

As long as there are sheep to be led to slaughter, it won't. But I at least can vote to end the scam as long as I live and work to better people's lives by allowing them to keep more of their own money. And that's exactly what I'll do.

That means 90% of those under 30 are sheep. When you are in that much of a minority then you need to look back and review your stance.

Since when is groupthink a good thing? And yes the vast majority of people under 30 are sheep. They've fallen for the "Don't worry, the benevolent government will take care of you" fairy tale.

And don't forget, SS is currently keeping MILLIONS of seniors above the poverty level. I'm quite certain they would argue with you too.

Barely above the poverty line. If they had saved the income confiscated by the government they'd be living much better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry, but a mentally deficient Monkey could do better investing than the SS fund does.

Privatize at least part of it.

Social Security is not meant to fully fund your retirement. It costs you a very small percent of your income to participate. What you do for the bulk of your retirement planning is not only your business,

you get many opportunities for tax breaks in that retirement planning.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're ignorant, that's your only problem.

Where you don't understand this is, as hard as it is to comprehend, from a budgetary perspective, the federal government and Social Security are 2 separate entities.

There's a reason they refer to Social Security as 'off-budget'. Social Security has its own separate source of revenue, the payroll tax. Social Security puts the collected payroll taxes into Federal treasuries, just like thousands of institutions and individuals around the world do.

The federal government's obligation is to pay back bonds when they mature. They do that with general revenues that have nothing to do with Social Security.

If there's any problem, it's the federal government's general borrowing to excess that's the problem. Social Security is not the problem

The difference here is that the government raised the collection of SS in order to pay for future needs that could not be met by its income source. That money was sent to a trust fund. Then that trust fund was spent in treasury bills that on other government projects. Now how can you net see that is a debt that the government needs to pay that they are keeping off the books for convenience. Soon, the SS is going to be drawing funds from the general fund in order to keep the promise that it made with the bills in the first place causing, in turn, us to have decreasing money in the general fund to pay for increasing costs of government. How can you not see this? The money WAS SPENT and then, using t-bills, the government SPENT IT TWICE. When it comes time for those loans to be repaid, there is going to be problems because we are hiding the 2 trillion in debt that we owe to ourselves.

Money collected in taxes always goes to the trust fund. Regulations require that money in the trust fund be invested in treasury bills or notes. The trust fund receives interest just like anyone who invest in treasuries. Putting the money in treasury bills can not in any sense of word be called an expense. The money is not spent. The government has the obligation to make good on it's financial obligation to repay the trust fund just as they do with individuals investing treasuries. These obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government just like the US currency. If that promise is no good, then the dollars in your pocket or worthless.

No shit. They call that DEBT. That is what debt is. What do you think happens to the money that is 'invested' in tbills. That's right ITS SPENT. What we have in its place is called debt and it grows each year with that interest that those bills accrue. Here, the government took the trust fund and then spent it through tbills but kept the debt off the books because, somehow, owing money to yourself was not owing at all even though that money was promised elsewhere. Fact is, the government will have to pay that back and that is going to amount to another 2 trillion in debt at a minimum.

And don't forget, SS is currently keeping MILLIONS of seniors above the poverty level. I'm quite certain they would argue with you too.

And you keep ignoring the fact that those same people would not only be barely above the poverty line but would be living MUCH BETTER if SS were privatized.

Sorry, but a mentally deficient Monkey could do better investing than the SS fund does.

Privatize at least part of it.

Ya.....great idea.

The Pew Survey has found that 52% of people over 50 years old are considering retiring later than 65 years old, and 68% of people over 57 years old are considering retiring later. This is because 59% of them have lost over 40% in their stock market accounts.

Baby Boomers Delaying Retirement | Wade Dokken, Ron Carson, Tom Hamlin, Lincoln Collins, etc on Fixed Index Annuities Investments of the annuity | Wade Dokken | annuities,guaranteed withdrawal benefits,lifetime income,index annuities,guarantee of pri

I love how the numbers are TOTALLY misrepresented here. We are not taking about investments made over a 2 year period. Those stocks seen a 40% dip after a DECADE of strong growth. What were those same portfolios worth in 1995? Likely the same and the values REBOUNDED in 2 short years. You have been asked to show a 45 year period where stocks (AGAIN, not the only method of investing either) have dropped in value or even done as poorly as SS does.

You are being disingenuous and dodging this simple fact. NO MATTER HOW WELL SS DOES, PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF IT WAS A PRIVATE INVESTMENT PLAN. Address the damn issue instead of repeating the same crap that SS keeps people above poverty. That was never the issue. The problem is that it keeps those millions AROUND poverty levels and if people were allowed to soundly invest they would be in a FAR better position.

I am beginning to wonder if you have any clue whatsoever how investments actually work...

 

[Flopper]

The difference here is that the government raised the collection of SS in order to pay for future needs that could not be met by its income source. That money was sent to a trust fund. Then that trust fund was spent in treasury bills that on other government projects. Now how can you net see that is a debt that the government needs to pay that they are keeping off the books for convenience. Soon, the SS is going to be drawing funds from the general fund in order to keep the promise that it made with the bills in the first place causing, in turn, us to have decreasing money in the general fund to pay for increasing costs of government. How can you not see this? The money WAS SPENT and then, using t-bills, the government SPENT IT TWICE. When it comes time for those loans to be repaid, there is going to be problems because we are hiding the 2 trillion in debt that we owe to ourselves.

Money collected in taxes always goes to the trust fund. Regulations require that money in the trust fund be invested in treasury bills or notes. The trust fund receives interest just like anyone who invest in treasuries. Putting the money in treasury bills can not in any sense of word be called an expense. The money is not spent. The government has the obligation to make good on it's financial obligation to repay the trust fund just as they do with individuals investing treasuries. These obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government just like the US currency. If that promise is no good, then the dollars in your pocket or worthless.

No shit. They call that DEBT. That is what debt is. What do you think happens to the money that is 'invested' in tbills. That's right ITS SPENT. What we have in its place is called debt and it grows each year with that interest that those bills accrue. Here, the government took the trust fund and then spent it through tbills but kept the debt off the books because, somehow, owing money to yourself was not owing at all even though that money was promised elsewhere. Fact is, the government will have to pay that back and that is going to amount to another 2 trillion in debt at a minimum.


And you keep ignoring the fact that those same people would not only be barely above the poverty line but would be living MUCH BETTER if SS were privatized.

Ya.....great idea.

The Pew Survey has found that 52% of people over 50 years old are considering retiring later than 65 years old, and 68% of people over 57 years old are considering retiring later. This is because 59% of them have lost over 40% in their stock market accounts.

Baby Boomers Delaying Retirement | Wade Dokken, Ron Carson, Tom Hamlin, Lincoln Collins, etc on Fixed Index Annuities Investments of the annuity | Wade Dokken | annuities,guaranteed withdrawal benefits,lifetime income,index annuities,guarantee of pri

I love how the numbers are TOTALLY misrepresented here. We are not taking about investments made over a 2 year period. Those stocks seen a 40% dip after a DECADE of strong growth. What were those same portfolios worth in 1995? Likely the same and the values REBOUNDED in 2 short years. You have been asked to show a 45 year period where stocks (AGAIN, not the only method of investing either) have dropped in value or even done as poorly as SS does.

You are being disingenuous and dodging this simple fact. NO MATTER HOW WELL SS DOES, PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF IT WAS A PRIVATE INVESTMENT PLAN. Address the damn issue instead of repeating the same crap that SS keeps people above poverty. That was never the issue. The problem is that it keeps those millions AROUND poverty levels and if people were allowed to soundly invest they would be in a FAR better position.

I am beginning to wonder if you have any clue whatsoever how investments actually work...

When S.S. buys treasuries, it remains an asset not an expense. The treasuries can be sold by S.S. at anytime and returned to a treasury checking account held at a Federal Reserve bank. The process is an exchange of assets.

The funds are spent by agencies. So it is an expense to the agency not S.S.

The bottom line is that the government never runs out of money. It either collects more taxes. cuts spending or issues more treasuries. As you indicated, borrowing more money is a problem. It increases interest expenses. However, the S.S. funds are safe. The treasury is going to borrow money to support government spending. If they don't get it from S.S. they get from some multinational corporation or bank. I prefer they get it from S.S.

 

[FA_Q2]

When S.S. buys treasuries, it remains an asset not an expense. The treasuries can be sold by S.S. at anytime and returned to a treasury checking account held at a Federal Reserve bank. The process is an exchange of assets.

The funds are spent by agencies. So it is an expense to the agency not S.S.

The bottom line is that the government never runs out of money. It either collects more taxes. cuts spending or issues more treasuries. As you indicated, borrowing more money is a problem. It increases interest expenses. However, the S.S. funds are safe. The treasury is going to borrow money to support government spending. If they don't get it from S.S. they get from some multinational corporation of a foreign bank. I prefer they get it from S.S.

The government can run out of money and it has happened many times before. The issue comes in when debt becomes so insolvent that the only answer is in the printing press which in turn leaves the money worthless and the country in ruin. I believe this to be far off, at least if we start to get things under control in the present. The problem with the getting the money from the SS is not that they should have gotten it elsewhere, it is that money IS debt and needs to be reflected as such. Hiding the fact that it is debt and continually talking about a trust fund that has no actual money in it is ignorant. IT does not matter who spent the money, it is still not there. It will still need to come from somewhere when the time comes for SS to cash in the bills. There is no way around that. In essence, instead of borrowing the money/printing when the agencies needed the money they will have to borrow/print it when they need to recover that money for SS expenses.

The best solution would have been to simply control spending and not borrowed the money from SS or any other source. The government is not capable of being responsible with its cash though. This is just one of the reasons that I laugh when the libs say low taxes are the reason that the deficit cannot be controlled. If there is one thing that the government has proven since the days of Regan is that no matter what the government lakes, it WILL spend more. The problem has NEVER been one of intake. It has always been a function of spending.

 

[Faccops]

I believe that most Americans support raising taxes to cover SS. And we already know that 90% of Americans view SS as a VERY important government program.

I'd rather reduce the benefit payout. Raise the retirement age before we increase taxes, I say. A lot of people can work beyond age 65.

I probably will won't need my SS benefits, and yet I'll probably work beyond age 65 anyhow, because I think I'd be bored if I were unemployed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The difference here is that the government raised the collection of SS in order to pay for future needs that could not be met by its income source. That money was sent to a trust fund. Then that trust fund was spent in treasury bills that on other government projects. Now how can you net see that is a debt that the government needs to pay that they are keeping off the books for convenience. Soon, the SS is going to be drawing funds from the general fund in order to keep the promise that it made with the bills in the first place causing, in turn, us to have decreasing money in the general fund to pay for increasing costs of government. How can you not see this? The money WAS SPENT and then, using t-bills, the government SPENT IT TWICE. When it comes time for those loans to be repaid, there is going to be problems because we are hiding the 2 trillion in debt that we owe to ourselves.

Money collected in taxes always goes to the trust fund. Regulations require that money in the trust fund be invested in treasury bills or notes. The trust fund receives interest just like anyone who invest in treasuries. Putting the money in treasury bills can not in any sense of word be called an expense. The money is not spent. The government has the obligation to make good on it's financial obligation to repay the trust fund just as they do with individuals investing treasuries. These obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government just like the US currency. If that promise is no good, then the dollars in your pocket or worthless.

No shit. They call that DEBT. That is what debt is. What do you think happens to the money that is 'invested' in tbills. That's right ITS SPENT. What we have in its place is called debt and it grows each year with that interest that those bills accrue. Here, the government took the trust fund and then spent it through tbills but kept the debt off the books because, somehow, owing money to yourself was not owing at all even though that money was promised elsewhere. Fact is, the government will have to pay that back and that is going to amount to another 2 trillion in debt at a minimum.


And you keep ignoring the fact that those same people would not only be barely above the poverty line but would be living MUCH BETTER if SS were privatized.

Ya.....great idea.

The Pew Survey has found that 52% of people over 50 years old are considering retiring later than 65 years old, and 68% of people over 57 years old are considering retiring later. This is because 59% of them have lost over 40% in their stock market accounts.

Baby Boomers Delaying Retirement | Wade Dokken, Ron Carson, Tom Hamlin, Lincoln Collins, etc on Fixed Index Annuities Investments of the annuity | Wade Dokken | annuities,guaranteed withdrawal benefits,lifetime income,index annuities,guarantee of pri

I love how the numbers are TOTALLY misrepresented here. We are not taking about investments made over a 2 year period. Those stocks seen a 40% dip after a DECADE of strong growth. What were those same portfolios worth in 1995? Likely the same and the values REBOUNDED in 2 short years. You have been asked to show a 45 year period where stocks (AGAIN, not the only method of investing either) have dropped in value or even done as poorly as SS does.

You are being disingenuous and dodging this simple fact. NO MATTER HOW WELL SS DOES, PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF IT WAS A PRIVATE INVESTMENT PLAN. Address the damn issue instead of repeating the same crap that SS keeps people above poverty. That was never the issue. The problem is that it keeps those millions AROUND poverty levels and if people were allowed to soundly invest they would be in a FAR better position.

I am beginning to wonder if you have any clue whatsoever how investments actually work...

Social security does not have to be privatized to invest in the market, if that's what enough people want.

All you have to do is change the law to allow the S.S. administration to invest X% of its collected revenue in stocks,

then all you need is for the administration to set up a stock buying program, they could buy ETF's or other products of a similar nature,

they would not need to pay any fees to money managers or anyone else from Wall Street in the private sector.

In fact, you could even allow individuals to determine their own exposure, of their own S.S., to the stock market portion.

 

[Flopper]

When S.S. buys treasuries, it remains an asset not an expense. The treasuries can be sold by S.S. at anytime and returned to a treasury checking account held at a Federal Reserve bank. The process is an exchange of assets.

The funds are spent by agencies. So it is an expense to the agency not S.S.

The bottom line is that the government never runs out of money. It either collects more taxes. cuts spending or issues more treasuries. As you indicated, borrowing more money is a problem. It increases interest expenses. However, the S.S. funds are safe. The treasury is going to borrow money to support government spending. If they don't get it from S.S. they get from some multinational corporation of a foreign bank. I prefer they get it from S.S.

The government can run out of money and it has happened many times before. The issue comes in when debt becomes so insolvent that the only answer is in the printing press which in turn leaves the money worthless and the country in ruin. I believe this to be far off, at least if we start to get things under control in the present. The problem with the getting the money from the SS is not that they should have gotten it elsewhere, it is that money IS debt and needs to be reflected as such. Hiding the fact that it is debt and continually talking about a trust fund that has no actual money in it is ignorant. IT does not matter who spent the money, it is still not there. It will still need to come from somewhere when the time comes for SS to cash in the bills. There is no way around that. In essence, instead of borrowing the money/printing when the agencies needed the money they will have to borrow/print it when they need to recover that money for SS expenses.

The best solution would have been to simply control spending and not borrowed the money from SS or any other source. The government is not capable of being responsible with its cash though. This is just one of the reasons that I laugh when the libs say low taxes are the reason that the deficit cannot be controlled. If there is one thing that the government has proven since the days of Regan is that no matter what the government lakes, it WILL spend more. The problem has NEVER been one of intake. It has always been a function of spending.

From what you are saying I think you understand that government will never actually become insolvent because they will just print money; issue more treasury notes and bills.

I agree deficit financing will eventually lead to inflation but you can’t say that a trillion dollar deficit will actually cause inflation. There are other factors at work. Anytime we increase the money supply we create inflationary pressure however there are deflationary pressures as result of the recession and other forces at work.

As far as devaluation, market forces determine the value of the dollar. There are a million other things other than our the deficit that can push the value of the dollar up or down. It is the amount of the deficit financing in relation to GDP as compared to other countries that's important.

When you say getting the money from Social Security, I’m not sure if you are talking about intergovernmental loan, “special loans” or S.S. buying treasuries. Both cases are loans from the S.S. trust fund to the government. To say that the trust fund has no money is a bit misleading. You are implying that treasuries notes and other obligations it holds are of no value which is certainly not so. Some years ago trillions of dollars in the trust fund would sit in a treasury account drawing no interest so it was decide that the trust would be invested in treasury obligations drawing interest. Now we complain that the trust account is empty and all the money is gone. This is no different than a large corporation placing all it’s moneys in the treasuries except for cash needed in less than 30 days. This is all explained in link below.

Like so many people both Republican, Democrat, and Independent, I view deficit financing as a major long-term problem. The Social Security problem pales in comparison. There are many fixes for S.S, such as reduction in benefits, increases in S.S. taxes, increase in retirement age, taxing benefits, changing the benefit formulas, and many others. A combination of any of the above can fix the problem. The baby boon hit S.S. this year and will last for about 18 years. After that S.S. will start feeling the effect of decreasing birth rates in the 70’s. The rate of people going on S.S. will be down by 30% within 25 years, about 2054. So we are looking at a temporary problem with S.S. The deficit is a whole different ballgame.

Trust Fund FAQs

 

[DaGoose]

If they had saved the income confiscated by the government they'd be living much better.

BINGO!! We have a winner!! The key word is IF. And most people do NOT save for retirement. No matter what you say you cannot change that fact. And for them SS is a godsend. For us it's a supplement.

So pay in and take it when it becomes available. You can piss and moan all you want but when your day comes you will go to the SS office, sign up and start enjoying it.

And it ain't gonna change.

 

[Flopper]

Money collected in taxes always goes to the trust fund. Regulations require that money in the trust fund be invested in treasury bills or notes. The trust fund receives interest just like anyone who invest in treasuries. Putting the money in treasury bills can not in any sense of word be called an expense. The money is not spent. The government has the obligation to make good on it's financial obligation to repay the trust fund just as they do with individuals investing treasuries. These obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government just like the US currency. If that promise is no good, then the dollars in your pocket or worthless.

No shit. They call that DEBT. That is what debt is. What do you think happens to the money that is 'invested' in tbills. That's right ITS SPENT. What we have in its place is called debt and it grows each year with that interest that those bills accrue. Here, the government took the trust fund and then spent it through tbills but kept the debt off the books because, somehow, owing money to yourself was not owing at all even though that money was promised elsewhere. Fact is, the government will have to pay that back and that is going to amount to another 2 trillion in debt at a minimum.


And you keep ignoring the fact that those same people would not only be barely above the poverty line but would be living MUCH BETTER if SS were privatized.

Ya.....great idea.



Baby Boomers Delaying Retirement | Wade Dokken, Ron Carson, Tom Hamlin, Lincoln Collins, etc on Fixed Index Annuities Investments of the annuity | Wade Dokken | annuities,guaranteed withdrawal benefits,lifetime income,index annuities,guarantee of pri

I love how the numbers are TOTALLY misrepresented here. We are not taking about investments made over a 2 year period. Those stocks seen a 40% dip after a DECADE of strong growth. What were those same portfolios worth in 1995? Likely the same and the values REBOUNDED in 2 short years. You have been asked to show a 45 year period where stocks (AGAIN, not the only method of investing either) have dropped in value or even done as poorly as SS does.

You are being disingenuous and dodging this simple fact. NO MATTER HOW WELL SS DOES, PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF IT WAS A PRIVATE INVESTMENT PLAN. Address the damn issue instead of repeating the same crap that SS keeps people above poverty. That was never the issue. The problem is that it keeps those millions AROUND poverty levels and if people were allowed to soundly invest they would be in a FAR better position.

I am beginning to wonder if you have any clue whatsoever how investments actually work...

Social security does not have to be privatized to invest in the market, if that's what enough people want.

All you have to do is change the law to allow the S.S. administration to invest X% of its collected revenue in stocks,

then all you need is for the administration to set up a stock buying program, they could buy ETF's or other products of a similar nature,

they would not need to pay any fees to money managers or anyone else from Wall Street in the private sector.

In fact, you could even allow individuals to determine their own exposure, of their own S.S., to the stock market portion.

This has probably been thought of before, but wouldn't there be a conflict interest for the government to be investing in markets in which it regulates? Also the fed takes action such interest rate changes that effect equity and bond market.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If they had saved the income confiscated by the government they'd be living much better.

BINGO!! We have a winner!! The key word is IF. And most people do NOT save for retirement. No matter what you say you cannot change that fact. And for them SS is a godsend. For us it's a supplement.

So pay in and take it when it becomes available. You can piss and moan all you want but when your day comes you will go to the SS office, sign up and start enjoying it.

And it ain't gonna change.

I've already said we require it just like we do now. We require employers to match just like we do now. the only difference is you keep ownership of the funds in the hands of the people not the ******* government.

But the government doesn't want people to be wealthy or financially independent it wants us to be dependent on it and even more so it wants the off the books slush fund that SS taxes provide.

 

[Flopper]

If they had saved the income confiscated by the government they'd be living much better.

BINGO!! We have a winner!! The key word is IF. And most people do NOT save for retirement. No matter what you say you cannot change that fact. And for them SS is a godsend. For us it's a supplement.

So pay in and take it when it becomes available. You can piss and moan all you want but when your day comes you will go to the SS office, sign up and start enjoying it.

And it ain't gonna change.

I've already said we require it just like we do now. We require employers to match just like we do now. the only difference is you keep ownership of the funds in the hands of the people not the ******* government.

But the government doesn't want people to be wealthy or financially independent it wants us to be dependent on it and even more so it wants the off the books slush fund that SS taxes provide.

If the government does not have S.S. taxes, 53 million people that get checks would stop receiving them in a few years. You can be sure that's not going to happen. The government would either borrow or tax to continue the benefit. Not a good solution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

BINGO!! We have a winner!! The key word is IF. And most people do NOT save for retirement. No matter what you say you cannot change that fact. And for them SS is a godsend. For us it's a supplement.

So pay in and take it when it becomes available. You can piss and moan all you want but when your day comes you will go to the SS office, sign up and start enjoying it.

And it ain't gonna change.

I've already said we require it just like we do now. We require employers to match just like we do now. the only difference is you keep ownership of the funds in the hands of the people not the ******* government.

But the government doesn't want people to be wealthy or financially independent it wants us to be dependent on it and even more so it wants the off the books slush fund that SS taxes provide.

If the government does not have S.S. taxes, 53 million people that get checks would stop receiving them in a few years. You can be sure that's not going to happen. The government would either borrow or tax to continue the benefit. Not a good solution.

Taking the hit to pay the current obligations will be less expensive than continuing the scam.