CDZ Social Security Trust Fund will go broke in 17 years

[flacaltenn]

I understand why it's confusing. I've spent much of my career in and around the pension fund industry. And even there, many people don't understand how SS works.

Including -- Apparently you.. Where is the "shortfall" getting financed? WHO EXACTLY is paying for it?

Don't disappoint me. You can't be that stupid..

 

[flacaltenn]

The chart below illustrates the SECOND THEFT of money for the SAME stolen contributions over 30 years.

ALL of this is NEW Treasury financing. NOTHING IN THE TRUST defers ANY portion of it...

 

[Toro]

But remember SS was sold as something separate, people paying into a system over time and taking that money out when they retired.
Government run, but technically not government funded. Once they started using the surplus to prop up the general fund, however, even that veneer of independence disappeared.

The surplus should have been invested in real securities like any other pension fund.

I would not structure SS as it is structured today. I'd structure SS like a real pension plan. Canada Pension Plan - the SS north of the border - is a real pension plan that invests in all sorts of assets. That's how SS should be structured, IMO.

But the idea behind SS was that it would be invested in the safest assets so that it would be there for when people retired. In finance, the safest investment is government debt. It (mostly) doesn't matter if the SS trusts are invested 100% in publicly-traded government or if it is structured the way it is today. The economics are exactly the same.

And though I think SS should be structured like a real pension plan and invest in stocks and bonds and real estate, etc., that runs counter to what social security was set up to be and violates the law. Thus, SS could not invest the surplus in anything other than government debt as it is currently structured.

 

[Toro]

That's idiotic to compare the useless book entries in the "trust fund" to a commercial bond fund. First of all, the stolen money was not actually PAID anything for 30 years and couldn't be "re-invested" with market changes. There was nothing of VALUE created. Cash value was manipulated. Nothing ever came from the Debits towards interest like with regular T-Bills. THEY NEVER BOOKED THE INTEREST PAID for 30 years...

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining..

First, I'm not comparing SS to a commercial bond fund. I'm comparing it to a government bond fund run by Fidelity. SS is structured exactly the same way as a defined benefit pension plan that invests solely in US government debt. There's no difference.

Second, nothing was stolen.

Third, the interest rate used in the SS fund reflects the weighted average interest rate of the publicly-traded US government debt.

 

[Toro]

EVERY PENNY of SS debt is now paid by NEW SPENDING. In the year incurred. NOTHING of value is in the Trust Fund "locker".. Ever SEE the Trust Fund?


Does this look like it's holds a couple $Trill in negotiable bonds and interest payments??

Every single penny government Treasury debt is also spent. There's no difference.

As for the Bush picture, do you own stocks or bonds? Where are they? I'll tell you. They are entries at a custodial bank. They aren't "real" either. They are entries on a server owned by a bank.

 

[Toro]

I understand why it's confusing. I've spent much of my career in and around the pension fund industry. And even there, many people don't understand how SS works.

Including -- Apparently you.. Where is the "shortfall" getting financed? WHO EXACTLY is paying for it?

Don't disappoint me. You can't be that stupid..

No, I understand it. I've made a good living at it.

As I've explained a few times, the deficit is financed by Treasury debt. I agree with you. There is an additional $53 billion in Treasury securities that are issued to cover the deficits in the SS trusts.

But if the government issued Treasury securities to deposit in the Trusts rather than crediting and debiting non-marketable liabilities like SS currently does, the government would have to issue ~$930 billion in Treasury securities. And because the total debt of the Treasury = Treasury securities + non-marketable liabilities, total government debt wouldn't change.

 

[flacaltenn]

I understand why it's confusing. I've spent much of my career in and around the pension fund industry. And even there, many people don't understand how SS works.

Including -- Apparently you.. Where is the "shortfall" getting financed? WHO EXACTLY is paying for it?

Don't disappoint me. You can't be that stupid..

No, I understand it. I've made a good living at it.

As I've explained a few times, the deficit is financed by Treasury debt. I agree with you. There is an additional $53 billion in Treasury securities that are issued to cover the deficits in the SS trusts.

But if the government issued Treasury securities to deposit in the Trusts rather than crediting and debiting non-marketable liabilities like SS currently does, the government would have to issue ~$930 billion in Treasury securities. And because the total debt of the Treasury = Treasury securities + non-marketable liabilities, total government debt wouldn't change.

People PAY you to do financial analysis? OF COURSE the debt would change. OVER TIME. Not just looking at a single year transaction.. .

If continual interest had actually been ISSUED on those "bonds" (which they are not) -- then the debt would be already BOOKED over those 30 years and TRANSFERED to liquid assets within the funds. Folks living today and their children wouldn't be paying a 2nd time for the same STOLEN dollar of interest on the surplus.

The fact that NO interest was paid on that debt is clear proof that this is nothing like a "bond fund investment". And asserting THAT as a financial guy could get you in trouble..

This is only ONE way that the surplus could have been RESPONSIBLY managed all those years to leave something in the "trust fund" to defer future costs. The other 2 example CLEARLY would have reduced our current and future liabilities by miles..

But to DO those things. Congress critters risked uncovering their felonious theft in the explanations. And NOBODY in the swamp is that brave..

 

[Toro]

I understand why it's confusing. I've spent much of my career in and around the pension fund industry. And even there, many people don't understand how SS works.

Including -- Apparently you.. Where is the "shortfall" getting financed? WHO EXACTLY is paying for it?

Don't disappoint me. You can't be that stupid..

No, I understand it. I've made a good living at it.

As I've explained a few times, the deficit is financed by Treasury debt. I agree with you. There is an additional $53 billion in Treasury securities that are issued to cover the deficits in the SS trusts.

But if the government issued Treasury securities to deposit in the Trusts rather than crediting and debiting non-marketable liabilities like SS currently does, the government would have to issue ~$930 billion in Treasury securities. And because the total debt of the Treasury = Treasury securities + non-marketable liabilities, total government debt wouldn't change.

People PAY you to do financial analysis? OF COURSE the debt would change. OVER TIME. Not just looking at a single year transaction.. .

If continual interest had actually been ISSUED on those "bonds" (which they are not) -- then the debt would be already BOOKED over those 30 years and TRANSFERED to liquid assets within the funds. Folks living today and their children wouldn't be paying a 2nd time for the same STOLEN dollar of interest on the surplus.

The fact that NO interest was paid on that debt is clear proof that this is nothing like a "bond fund investment". And asserting THAT as a financial guy could get you in trouble..

This is only ONE way that the surplus could have been RESPONSIBLY managed all those years to leave something in the "trust fund" to defer future costs. The other 2 example CLEARLY would have reduced our current and future liabilities by miles..

But to DO those things. Congress critters risked uncovering their felonious theft in the explanations. And NOBODY in the swamp is that brave..

Yes, people pay me for what I do. I am very, very, very good at my job. Knowledgeable people know this.

And no, interest has been paid on those "bonds." It is recorded every year.

And again, no, nothing has been "stolen." I don't know where you get this idea, but it is factually wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

I understand why it's confusing. I've spent much of my career in and around the pension fund industry. And even there, many people don't understand how SS works.

Including -- Apparently you.. Where is the "shortfall" getting financed? WHO EXACTLY is paying for it?

Don't disappoint me. You can't be that stupid..

No, I understand it. I've made a good living at it.

As I've explained a few times, the deficit is financed by Treasury debt. I agree with you. There is an additional $53 billion in Treasury securities that are issued to cover the deficits in the SS trusts.

But if the government issued Treasury securities to deposit in the Trusts rather than crediting and debiting non-marketable liabilities like SS currently does, the government would have to issue ~$930 billion in Treasury securities. And because the total debt of the Treasury = Treasury securities + non-marketable liabilities, total government debt wouldn't change.

People PAY you to do financial analysis? OF COURSE the debt would change. OVER TIME. Not just looking at a single year transaction.. .

If continual interest had actually been ISSUED on those "bonds" (which they are not) -- then the debt would be already BOOKED over those 30 years and TRANSFERED to liquid assets within the funds. Folks living today and their children wouldn't be paying a 2nd time for the same STOLEN dollar of interest on the surplus.

The fact that NO interest was paid on that debt is clear proof that this is nothing like a "bond fund investment". And asserting THAT as a financial guy could get you in trouble..

This is only ONE way that the surplus could have been RESPONSIBLY managed all those years to leave something in the "trust fund" to defer future costs. The other 2 example CLEARLY would have reduced our current and future liabilities by miles..

But to DO those things. Congress critters risked uncovering their felonious theft in the explanations. And NOBODY in the swamp is that brave..

Yes, people pay me for what I do. I am very, very, very good at my job. Knowledgeable people know this.

And no, interest has been paid on those "bonds." It is recorded every year.

And again, no, nothing has been "stolen." I don't know where you get this idea, but it is factually wrong.

Now you're lying. No interest payments from Treasury have EVER been booked and recorded in their budget. There is no OUTLAY from the Gen Fund to match those phony interest payments. REAL bond interest is part of the Annual Unified Budget. They are on the backs of FUTURE taxpayers. SOME of whom are the victims of the original theft.

I suppose you consider it proper to take investments from your clients and blow them on a Mega Palace for your firm in Bern Switzerland.. And then have them sign the notes five years hence for you to float corporate debt to pay them back..

THAT's the crime here.

THe crime here is the FICTION of a Trust Fund. It enables the bold robbers to point to a book of IOUs and tell YOU and YOUR KIDS that you have to PAY AGAIN for the money they stole over 30 years. Because "the book" says so. When in reality the crooks didn't lift a PINKIE finger to manage any actions that would RELIEVE the future shortfalls of the program --- using the SURPLUS to assure that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just one question for you "the trust fund" has $TRILLs of value in it" morons.

WHO is paying this bill?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just one question for you "the trust fund" has $TRILLs of value in it" morons.

WHO is paying this bill?

Trust fund or no trust fund, the US Treasury (that's the taxpayers) are on the hook.
Every year that payroll tax receipts are less than benefits paid, the Treasury will have to sell extra bonds
to raise the money to pay those benefits.
Same as it ever was.

 

[flacaltenn]

WHAT "investments" were made to PAY that debt??

Remember -- don't make shit up. There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Trust Fund available to pay that debt.

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just one question for you "the trust fund" has $TRILLs of value in it" morons.

WHO is paying this bill?

Trust fund or no trust fund, the US Treasury (that's the taxpayers) are on the hook.
Every year that payroll tax receipts are less than benefits paid, the Treasury will have to sell extra bonds
to raise the money to pay those benefits.
Same as it ever was.

And WHY are the taxpayers "on the hook" AGAIN for that debt from STOLEN funds, if there WERE "investments" and a "trust fund"???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

WHAT "investments" were made to PAY that debt??

Remember -- don't make shit up. There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Trust Fund available to pay that debt.

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

WHAT "investments" were made to PAY that debt??

Social Security is "Pay as you go", not "Fully funded"

Remember -- don't make shit up. There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Trust Fund available to pay that debt.

Of course not. The government spends every dollar they take in....and more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just one question for you "the trust fund" has $TRILLs of value in it" morons.

WHO is paying this bill?

Trust fund or no trust fund, the US Treasury (that's the taxpayers) are on the hook.
Every year that payroll tax receipts are less than benefits paid, the Treasury will have to sell extra bonds
to raise the money to pay those benefits.
Same as it ever was.

And WHY are the taxpayers "on the hook" AGAIN for that debt from STOLEN funds, if there WERE "investments" and a "trust fund"???

And WHY are the taxpayers "on the hook"

The government made promises. That puts the taxpayers on the hook.

AGAIN for that debt from STOLEN funds

They aren't on the hook again. Just on the hook.....still.

if there WERE "investments" and a "trust fund"???

Investments have to be sold to get cash. Whether the Trust Fund sells bonds to the public or hands them to the Treasury and the Treasury sells new bonds to the public....there is no difference.
The Treasury owes interest to the Trust Fund when it owns the bonds.....
the Treasury owes interest to the new public bond holder when they own the bonds.

Now, if you want to go back in time and have the Trust Fund buy $2.6 trillion in corporate bonds, instead of Treasuries, fine.
The taxpayer would still be on the hook for the $2.6 trillion, because that old spending would have required additional bond sales back then, instead of selling more now as the Trust Fund redeems their bonds.
No net change.

 

[flacaltenn]

AGAIN for that debt from STOLEN funds

They aren't on the hook again. Just on the hook.....still.

You were doin OK until that. A certain amount of money PROMISED to a specific insurance program was stolen over 30 years. SUPPOSEDLY "the promises" are gonna pay that back NOW. Meaning that not only was any one taxpayer robbed for say $800/yr for his/her working life -- But NOW -- they are expected to PAY AGAIN for that SAME $800/yr that was stolen in the 1st place.

We are SUPPOSEDLY FINANCING the theft thru the phoney Trust Fund. But that same "premium theft" is being pulled TWICE out your wallet for the SAME missing dollars.

Quite a scam actually. The same money they squandered -- are now the same $$$ they want YOU to pay back into the fund.

Don't you get that part? You've been robbed TWICE for the same missing premiums... If you're not completely outraged -- you don't understand the crime..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AGAIN for that debt from STOLEN funds

They aren't on the hook again. Just on the hook.....still.

You were doin OK until that. A certain amount of money PROMISED to a specific insurance program was stolen over 30 years. SUPPOSEDLY "the promises" are gonna pay that back NOW. Meaning that not only was any one taxpayer robbed for say $800/yr for his/her working life -- But NOW -- they are expected to PAY AGAIN for that SAME $800/yr that was stolen in the 1st place.

We are SUPPOSEDLY FINANCING the theft thru the phoney Trust Fund. But that same "premium theft" is being pulled TWICE out your wallet for the SAME missing dollars.

Quite a scam actually. The same money they squandered -- are now the same $$$ they want YOU to pay back into the fund.

Don't you get that part? You've been robbed TWICE for the same missing premiums... If you're not completely outraged -- you don't understand the crime..

A certain amount of money PROMISED to a specific insurance program was stolen over 30 years.

They should have taken the surplus and turned it into pallets of $100s?
Those have a very low yield.

SUPPOSEDLY "the promises" are gonna pay that back NOW.

Yes, payouts are now higher than payroll taxes collected.

Meaning that not only was any one taxpayer robbed for say $800/yr for his/her working life

Yes, pay those payroll taxes. Granny needed her check. I still miss her.

But NOW -- they are expected to PAY AGAIN for that SAME $800/yr that was stolen in the 1st place.

Yes, the government spends way too much. We're on the hook.

We are SUPPOSEDLY FINANCING the theft thru the phoney Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund meant fewer bonds sold to the public back then.....more when they're cashed in.

The same money they squandered

Yup, the government spends way too much.

If you're not completely outraged

Your confusion doesn't make poor government fiscal discipline more outrageous than it already is.

If I had been allowed to invest the 12.4% on my paycheck that the government has taken all these years, my portfolio, just from that money, would give me easily triple what I'll get monthly, plus a big lump sum to pass along to my heirs.

 

[flacaltenn]

A certain amount of money PROMISED to a specific insurance program was stolen over 30 years.

They should have taken the surplus and turned it into pallets of $100s?
Those have a very low yield.

Not lower than paying DOUBLE INTEREST on the theft. There was NEGATIVE benefit to the SS program by what was ACTUALLY done. Those pallets of cash -- all $$1TRIL + --- would be paying deficit fund income today..

We are SUPPOSEDLY FINANCING the theft thru the phoney Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund meant fewer bonds sold to the public back then.....more when they're cashed in.

Not a good fiduciary move. To RELY on spending earmarked funds KNOWING the program was going off the rails in the future. Actually -- would be criminal. If the heist wasn't done in the swamp..

If you're not completely outraged

Your confusion doesn't make poor government fiscal discipline more outrageous than it already is.

If I had been allowed to invest the 12.4% on my paycheck that the government has taken all these years, my portfolio, just from that money, would give me easily triple what I'll get monthly, plus a big lump sum to pass along to my heirs.

Oh it certainly SHOULD make you more outraged. Spending like ugly hookers is one thing. ROBBING the clients is completely another. We TRUSTED the govt to manage that "Universal" program and they abused it. Like they've abused EVERY OTHER Trust Fund they are in charge of. Ask the Indian Nations where THEIR Trust Fund went. Or ask the states where the Hiway Trust Fund has gone.

They couldn't manage a pinata beat down.. Without stealing the candy from the kids..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A certain amount of money PROMISED to a specific insurance program was stolen over 30 years.

They should have taken the surplus and turned it into pallets of $100s?
Those have a very low yield.

Not lower than paying DOUBLE INTEREST on the theft.
Those pallets of cash -- all $$1TRIL + --- would be paying deficit fund income today..

We are SUPPOSEDLY FINANCING the theft thru the phoney Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund meant fewer bonds sold to the public back then.....more when they're cashed in.

Not a good fiduciary move. To RELY on spending earmarked funds KNOWING the program was going off the rails in the future. Actually -- would be criminal. If the heist wasn't done in the swamp..

If you're not completely outraged

Your confusion doesn't make poor government fiscal discipline more outrageous than it already is.

If I had been allowed to invest the 12.4% on my paycheck that the government has taken all these years, my portfolio, just from that money, would give me easily triple what I'll get monthly, plus a big lump sum to pass along to my heirs.

Oh it certainly SHOULD make you more outraged. Spending like ugly hookers is one thing. ROBBING the clients is completely another. Like they've abused EVERY OTHER Trust Fund they are in charge of. Ask the Indian Nations where THEIR Trust Fund went. Or ask the states where the Hiway Trust Fund has gone.

They couldn't manage a pinata beat down.. Without stealing the candy from the kids..

Not lower than paying DOUBLE INTEREST on the theft.

Yes, lower.

There was NEGATIVE benefit to the SS program by what was ACTUALLY done.

The Trust Fund would have received zero interest and the Treasury would have still paid interest to public holders.

Not a good fiduciary move.

Get them to buy corporate bonds. Treasury would still owe the debt to the public.

Oh it certainly SHOULD make you more outraged.

I understand the accounting. Social Security is a bad deal, don't get me wrong, it's not made worse because they didn't stack pallets of $100s as opposed to Treasuries.

Spending like ugly hookers is one thing. ROBBING the clients is completely another.

You're robbed by the poor return, not by the Trust Fund.
You're robbed by wasteful government spending, not by the Trust Fund.

We TRUSTED the govt to manage that "Universal" program and they abused it.

By unrealistic benefits, too high COL calculations, too low retirement age, too many fake disability claims.
Not by the Trust Fund.

 

[Toro]

Now you're lying. No interest payments from Treasury have EVER been booked and recorded in their budget. There is no OUTLAY from the Gen Fund to match those phony interest payments. REAL bond interest is part of the Annual Unified Budget. They are on the backs of FUTURE taxpayers. SOME of whom are the victims of the original theft.

The interest rates in the trusts are imputed by the cash flows through the trusts. The budget doesn't show the interest expense because it is redundant to do so. Interest compounds within the trusts and the liabilities to the government grows to reflect the compounded interest. If the trusts owned marketable Treasury securities, the interest expense would be on the general budget but it would make no difference whatsoever to the liabilities of the Treasury. The balance sheet of the government would look exactly the same.