Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
You are off the deep end. But I guess semantics is your only defense.
How much should this figure be?
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry
- Thread starter Quantum Windbag
- Start date
You are off the deep end. But I guess semantics is your only defense.
How much should this figure be?
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,878
- 11,043
- 2,030
The Fed is worried about inflation, why aren't you?
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Right about WHAT NYC?? That Soc Sec took in more than they paid out in 2010? Only if you count the phoney interest payments. THat DID NOT COME from the Trust Fund.. In fact the only ACTUAL transfers from Treasury in 2010 was the $41Bill (in NEW debt) to cover the shortfall. All the other "interest" was an accounting entry to cover the fiction..
Last edited:
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
You are getting too retarded to talk to. Did Social Security make all its recipient payments last year or not?
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
We'll cut defense and raise taxes on the rich. Problem solved.
OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
What does your question even mean?
OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
LOL! With a 0.75% interest on fed funds? Yeah, I can tell, they're REALLY worried about inflation.
Worrying about inflation in the midst of a depression is like worrying about what kind of diseases might be at the bottom of a bottle of whiskey.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
They were able to pay every dollar to beneficiaries. But the $40BIll that they were short because of revenue deficit had to be covered by NEW DEBT issued in 2010. It did not come out of the Trust Fund.. There are now TWO Debt instruments to cover $40Bill that was stolen in the past.
1) The phoney IOU in the trust fund when excess FICA was stolen with all it's elaborate accounting ruses.. AND
2) The NEW T-Bond issued in 2010 to cover an actual shortfall. Payable to Japan, China or maybe someone on USMB like me.
It was not because of "interest payments" on the IOUs.
You paid excess FICA for 30 yrs. And now when SS is actually running a deficit -- you will pay again. WITH interest. The Trust Fund is an accounting fiction.
If the Trust Fund had real investments with real value -- the Treasury wouldn't need to put today's taxpayers on the hook for $40Bill NEW dollars to pay back $40BILL that was stolen from them in the past..
Last edited:
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,380
- 86,792
- 2,645
Bernie Madoff used to say the exact same thing
OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
LOL!!!! Investments in what? An object that the economy of the U.S. doesn't have to produce? Do you understand basic economics? The only way to take the burden off the American taxpayer by alternative investment would be to buy foreign debt and equity - is that what you want? If we had bought American corporate debt and equity instead - you do realize - the burden would still fall on the American economy - right? Either way, the productive members of the economy (workers) are still producing the goods and services the unproductive members need (non-workers).
Last edited:
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
Check out some interesting articles:
CBS
The Real Risk to Social Security
But where the system really turns murky is with the trillion-dollar Social Security trust fund, an accounting phantom that has launched a thousand half-cocked headlines like AP’s. Social Security experts like Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute regard it as a trillion-dollar distraction. “I try to avoid the trust fund debate,” he writes in an email. “Social Security is mainly a pay-as-you-go system.”
There is a massive trust fund — and this is one case where your definition of “is” really matters — only because FICA has pulled in much more than Social Security needed for the past 27 years. The government treated the FICA surplus the same way it treats all tax revenue: It spent it on aircraft carriers, interest on the debt, haircuts for Congressmen, and all the other purposes of government. The surplus, along with imputed interest, is recorded on the government’s ledgers. That ledger entry is the trust fund.
In the meantime, forget about when the Social Security trust fund will be “drained.” Indeed, forget about the trust fund altogether. It’s irrelevant. As with all the fiscal challenges we face, Social Security’s biggest risk is failure of political will. There’s no trust fund for that.
Robert Samuelson
A relatively small elderly population sustained these fictions. Now, this is no longer possible. Contrary to the Obama administration's posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what's happening. Just as important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid.
--------------
It really comes down to the question of ....
Do we trust the gov't's ability to pay these back and
keep the buying power of our money stable?
If one feels their "money" is safe in the gov't's hand
then there should be no problem
One will collect benefits only if future tax revenues materialize as hoped;
the money you paid into the system is long gone.
Social Security is just a tax.
When it comes to Social Security, it is not an old age pension, an “insurance” program,
or even a forced savings program. It is just an enormous transfer payment from the younger workers to the old.
The confusion on some of this was from the gov't in creating the idea that SS was "more" than
just a tax and transfer payment, to promote the gov't's status quo and power. Which is why seniors have a strong
feeling of entitlement to their payments; they have been made to believe that SS is more like a "savings" program and
some type of "contract" is being broken if benefits were to decrease,when it is not.
But the SCOTUS ruled a long time ago, that SS is just a tax program and the gov't can modified the program anyway
it wants based on the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress."
Just as a side note
It is interesting how hard the far Left will go in defending such a regressive tax
like the payroll tax
CBS
The Real Risk to Social Security
But where the system really turns murky is with the trillion-dollar Social Security trust fund, an accounting phantom that has launched a thousand half-cocked headlines like AP’s. Social Security experts like Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute regard it as a trillion-dollar distraction. “I try to avoid the trust fund debate,” he writes in an email. “Social Security is mainly a pay-as-you-go system.”
There is a massive trust fund — and this is one case where your definition of “is” really matters — only because FICA has pulled in much more than Social Security needed for the past 27 years. The government treated the FICA surplus the same way it treats all tax revenue: It spent it on aircraft carriers, interest on the debt, haircuts for Congressmen, and all the other purposes of government. The surplus, along with imputed interest, is recorded on the government’s ledgers. That ledger entry is the trust fund.
In the meantime, forget about when the Social Security trust fund will be “drained.” Indeed, forget about the trust fund altogether. It’s irrelevant. As with all the fiscal challenges we face, Social Security’s biggest risk is failure of political will. There’s no trust fund for that.
Robert Samuelson
A relatively small elderly population sustained these fictions. Now, this is no longer possible. Contrary to the Obama administration's posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what's happening. Just as important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid.
It really comes down to the question of ....
Do we trust the gov't's ability to pay these back and
keep the buying power of our money stable?
If one feels their "money" is safe in the gov't's hand
then there should be no problem
One will collect benefits only if future tax revenues materialize as hoped;
the money you paid into the system is long gone.
Social Security is just a tax.
When it comes to Social Security, it is not an old age pension, an “insurance” program,
or even a forced savings program. It is just an enormous transfer payment from the younger workers to the old.
The confusion on some of this was from the gov't in creating the idea that SS was "more" than
just a tax and transfer payment, to promote the gov't's status quo and power. Which is why seniors have a strong
feeling of entitlement to their payments; they have been made to believe that SS is more like a "savings" program and
some type of "contract" is being broken if benefits were to decrease,when it is not.
But the SCOTUS ruled a long time ago, that SS is just a tax program and the gov't can modified the program anyway
it wants based on the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress."
Just as a side note
It is interesting how hard the far Left will go in defending such a regressive tax
like the payroll tax
Last edited:
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
'We' pay the interest on the Trust Fund because the Trust Fund invests in US treasuries. If the Trust Fund didn't invest in US treasuries 'we' would have borrowed the money elsewhere and still have paid the interest.
If the Trust Fund invested in marketable securities we STILL would have to pay the interest on them, and,
as to the marketability of them? If the US was in default, where would the Trust Fund sell them?
Use your head.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Really? Does this make you sleep better at night?
Or maybe what things look like for those younger Americans.
The accounting might be correct, but the money is gone...................................
The money is gone if you believe the full faith and credit of the US government is gone.
Can the US no longer afford to pay the annual interest on the Trust Fund?
THE MONEY IS GONE.
The fact, checks could not be guaranteed should have been sufficient cause for alarm.
Instead youre telling us every things fine. If it was fine, why threaten the checks?
What should this figure be?
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
The checks were only threatened because the Republicans, assuming they weren't bluffing, were insisting they were prepared to destroy this country financially if they didn't get their way.
OF COURSE this country's full faith and credit can't be guaranteed under that scenario.
If the first to be paid debtors of the USA's debts are NOT the US citizens who trusted their government, one ought to be asking oneseelf why they are NOT the first in line.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, that appearently never occcurs to our right wing neighbors.
They fully understand and insist that the FED pay its debts to everybody EXCEPT the workers of this nation.
Why?
Because they basically hate those workers and their first loyalty is to CAPITAL, that's why.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, that appearently never occcurs to our right wing neighbors.
They fully understand and insist that the FED pay its debts to everybody EXCEPT the workers of this nation.
Why?
Because they basically hate those workers and their first loyalty is to CAPITAL, that's why.
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
If social security's loans owed by the FEDERAL government are worthless, then so too are ALL debts owed by the FEDS.
And if that is the case then we have one hell of a bigger problem than JUST social security.
Because the other 3/4s of all US debts is mostly owned by our banks, our insurance companies, our 401Ks, and our corporations who THINK they have T bills in their vaults that are worth something.
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
The issue with the loans is they can not be redeemed on demand for cash without borrowing.
You can assume what ever you wish.
OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
Almost all bank accounts are just ledger entries.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Cops swarm on Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro ranch to search for bodies of two girls- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 2
-
Green Germany: Volkswagen Loses Half Their Profit, to Cut 50,000 Jobs Over Next Four Years
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 5
-
-
Say now what happened to the$200 per barrel oil thread ??- Started by WEATHER53
- Replies: 19
-
