The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government buys its own bonds, spends the money used to buy those bonds, and calls the bonds an asset. It then turns the assets into cash by raising taxes or borrowing. Its a Ponzi scheme, and the assets offered by a Ponzi scheme are no assets at all.

The government should just spend the money without resorting to the bond dodge.
As you noticed, the existence of the "Trust Fund" doesn't help pay the benefits during regular times or during a debt ceiling shutdown.

In reality, it really is just spending the money. When you buy a bond, you finance government spending. When the government buys its own bond, it is simply financing its own spending. And it does that through taxing and borrowing. It is literally no different than just taxing and borrowing the money without a "trust fund." In reality, there is no trust fund.

Yes.

 

[georgephillip]

The "trust fund" is full of nonmarketable US government bonds. When money is put into a government bond, it finances government spending. Government invests payroll tax revenue into its own bonds, revenue which is then spent on other government expenditures. In this scenario, the federal government is both the issuer and the recipient of the bond, which in itself is completely insane. When cashing in the bonds, the government literally has to raise the revenue to pay back itself. It does this by taxing or borrowing the money, the latter more common.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as obvious as the sun at high noon. Your failure and the failure of others to see this obvious reality is, quite frankly, disturbing.

What is kooky is your desire to get rid of a great program which has helped old people for SEVENTY YEARS!

Apparently you missed the point that old people would have been better off without social security.

Can you explain why old people would have been better off without Social Security?

My grandmother would have agreed with you, btw.
In fact she was working when FDR created Social Security and made it mandatory.
Grandma was so far to the right she refused to sign up for the program in 1935.

Fast-forward the 1966.
She's no longer able to work.
She has no money coming in because she never earned enough to fund her own retirement.

Do you think she would have been better off with SSA benefits?

 

[georgephillip]

"The Wall Street TARP Gang Wants to Take Away Your Social Security

"Just over two years ago, the Wall Streeters were running around Congress and the media saying that if they don't immediately get $700 billion the world will end.

"Since they own large chunks of both, they quickly got their money.

"Even more important than the hundreds of billions of loans issued through the TARP was the trillions of dollars of loans and guarantees from the Fed and the FDIC. This money came with virtually no strings attached. It kept Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America and many others from collapsing...

"In addition, the near retirees, the people directly in the gun sights of the Wall Street TARPers, have just seen most of their wealth destroyed by the collapse of the housing bubble.

"The Wall Streeters now want to kick them yet again, by taking away Social Security benefits that they have already paid for.

"If Congress and the media worked for the public, we would be debating Wall Street speculation taxes right now.

"Insofar as we need to do something about the deficit in the longer term, taxing Wall Street speculation is a far more economic desirable route than taking away the Social Security benefits that ordinary workers have already paid for.

"We could easily raise more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade with a broadly based speculation tax than would have almost no impact on anyone except the Wall Street crew."

The Wall Street TARP Gang Wants to Take Away Your Social Security | Common Dreams

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The Wall Street TARP Gang Wants to Take Away Your Social Security

"Just over two years ago, the Wall Streeters were running around Congress and the media saying that if they don't immediately get $700 billion the world will end.

"Since they own large chunks of both, they quickly got their money.

"Even more important than the hundreds of billions of loans issued through the TARP was the trillions of dollars of loans and guarantees from the Fed and the FDIC. This money came with virtually no strings attached. It kept Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America and many others from collapsing...

"In addition, the near retirees, the people directly in the gun sights of the Wall Street TARPers, have just seen most of their wealth destroyed by the collapse of the housing bubble.

"The Wall Streeters now want to kick them yet again, by taking away Social Security benefits that they have already paid for.

"If Congress and the media worked for the public, we would be debating Wall Street speculation taxes right now.

"Insofar as we need to do something about the deficit in the longer term, taxing Wall Street speculation is a far more economic desirable route than taking away the Social Security benefits that ordinary workers have already paid for.

"We could easily raise more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade with a broadly based speculation tax than would have almost no impact on anyone except the Wall Street crew."

The Wall Street TARP Gang Wants to Take Away Your Social Security | Common Dreams

"The Wall Streeters now want to kick them yet again, by taking away Social Security benefits that they have already paid for"

Near retirees didn't already pay for their retirement benefits.
They paid for the retirement benefits of the cohort that retired before them.

 

[georgephillip]

Then it's time to kick that financial transaction tax into high gear.

 

[kaz]

Can you explain why old people would have been better off without Social Security?

My grandmother would have agreed with you, btw.
In fact she was working when FDR created Social Security and made it mandatory.
Grandma was so far to the right she refused to sign up for the program in 1935.

Fast-forward the 1966.
She's no longer able to work.
She has no money coming in because she never earned enough to fund her own retirement.

Do you think she would have been better off with SSA benefits?

Would someone be better off without a check of someone else's money mailed to them by the government? That's seriously your question?

As a society she would be better of if this were the chain. She should rely on:

- herself
- her family
- private charity
- local government
- state government

Today we rely on one entity that doesn't belong in the list at all.

- Federal Government

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then it's time to kick that financial transaction tax into high gear.

Exactly! Because giving the government more money and killing another industry is surely the way to get the economy going again. LOL!

 

[Foxfyre]

Near retirees didn't already pay for their retirement benefits.
They paid for the retirement benefits of the cohort that retired before them.

A good question to ask your kids is whether they would prefer to have a $1 or a penny that would be doubled every day for ten days. That $1 usually looks like a really good deal, but if they had taken the penny doubled every day for ten days, they could have had $10.24.

So the government initiates social security on the promise that no one would ever need to contribute nore than 3% on the first portion of their income. Old folks didn't live very long then and there were a lot more workers than old folks.

So social security initially was indeed 'free money' to the first recipients who had contributed little or nothing to it. And at first the money poured into the U.S. treasury to support the retirees and everybody felt virtuous and righteous that they were showing compassion for the old folks.

At that time people saved for their retirement, invested and grew their savings, and, if they didn't need it all for their own use, it passed on to their heirs. It was their money.

And then the entitlement mentality began setting in.

Workers didn't feel as much need to save for their retirement because they could count on social security.

And because so much of that money wasn't needed yet, the government started 'borrowing' against it and using it for other things on the theory it would be replaced before it was needed. And government became addicted to having that money to spend on things.

And because the social security fund was so awash with cash, it was expanded to cover other things like people on disability who were still way below retirement age and then their families. And though government felt even more virtuous and righteous at doing such good things, the funds wouldn't quite go around so they raised the social security tax again. . . .and again. . . .and again . . .and again. . .

And old folks started living longer and retiring earlier because they had social security and could. And when there was once 50 workers paying for the social security of one retiree we were soon down to 10, then 5, then 3. When the bulk of the baby boomers retire it will be about 2 workers supporting every retiree.

Your own savings and investments are yours. You can continue to save and grow them or spend them or give them away or will them to your heirs.

Your social security money has not earned a dime all the years you have been paying into it because the government doesn't invest and grow it but spends every penny of it and then some as soon as it hits the treasury. It is not yours. The government could take it all away with a simple majority vote of Congress. If you die before you draw any of it, you lose it all. You can't give it away. You can't will it to your heirs. And the government has used it to mask the true deficits and budget deficiencies for many decades now.

Yes social security should be gradually phased out of the federal government and returned to the states and the taxpayer where it should have been all along.

 

[georgephillip]

Then it's time to kick that financial transaction tax into high gear.

Exactly! Because giving the government more money and killing another industry is surely the way to get the economy going again. LOL!

What's the current federal tax rate relative to GDP?

Will Wall Street move to Toronto if confronted with a financial transaction tax?

Will you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then it's time to kick that financial transaction tax into high gear.

Exactly! Because giving the government more money and killing another industry is surely the way to get the economy going again. LOL!

What's the current federal tax rate relative to GDP?

Will Wall Street move to Toronto if confronted with a financial transaction tax?

Will you?

Federal tax rate relative to GDP? What's that?

Did you mean tax receipts as a percentage of GDP?

Wall Street won't have to move, they can just do the trades on an overseas exchange.
Electrons can move very quickly overseas.
How many billions in new revenue will you raise then?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

It was their money to begin with. They earned it.

When are you on the left going to realize that taxes burden the American people with labor they have to pay the government before they can take care of themselves? The money is theirs.

At what point have they paid their fair share?

Did you bother reading the link?

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income..."

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

They don't work three times harder now because they worked three times harder when it was most beneficial, during school and their internship. They worked harder during those times than most middle-class workers realize. But since they weren't earning huge salaries nobody cared to notice.. Most of the people that are working three times harder now are doing so because they slacked off in school, never went to college, and never aspired to be anything greater than they are now.

The richest 1% are becoming richer for no reason other than the bottom 50% are getting dumber and lazier every generation. They spend more of their money on unnecessary crap instead of the essentials, they drop out of school and then demand to have a good paying job, they're lazy at work but then demand to get regular decent raises. They want everyone to give them more while they offer nothing back in return.

 

[georgephillip]

It was their money to begin with. They earned it.

When are you on the left going to realize that taxes burden the American people with labor they have to pay the government before they can take care of themselves? The money is theirs.

At what point have they paid their fair share?

Did you bother reading the link?

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income..."

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

They don't work three times harder now because they worked three times harder when it was most beneficial, during school and their internship. They worked harder during those times than most middle-class workers realize. But since they weren't earning huge salaries nobody cared to notice.. Most of the people that are working three times harder now are doing so because they slacked off in school, never went to college, and never aspired to be anything greater than they are now.

The richest 1% are becoming richer for no reason other than the bottom 50% are getting dumber and lazier every generation. They spend more of their money on unnecessary crap instead of the essentials, they drop out of school and then demand to have a good paying job, they're lazy at work but then demand to get regular decent raises. They want everyone to give them more while they offer nothing back in return.

Hourly wages for workers dropped by 8% between 1973 and 2005 while productivity increased 55%.

That helps explain why the richest 1% of Americans tripled its share of America's income over the last thirty years.

While there are certainly lazy Americans there are far more US workers today working more jobs and longer hours than they did a generation ago for about the same money and fewer benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20geoghegan.html?_r=1&hp

 

[georgephillip]

"Right now Social Security pays out 39 percent of the average worker’s preretirement earnings.

"While jaws may drop inside the Beltway, we could raise that to 50 percent. We’d still be near the bottom of the league of the world’s richest countries — but at least it would be a basement with some food and air.

"We have elderly people living on less than $10,000 a year.

"Is that what Democrats want to 'save'?"

And what Republicans want to privatize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20geoghegan.html?_r=1&hp

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Right now Social Security pays out 39 percent of the average worker’s preretirement earnings.

"While jaws may drop inside the Beltway, we could raise that to 50 percent. We’d still be near the bottom of the league of the world’s richest countries — but at least it would be a basement with some food and air.

"We have elderly people living on less than $10,000 a year.

"Is that what Democrats want to 'save'?"

And what Republicans want to privatize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20geoghegan.html?_r=1&hp

"Right now Social Security pays out 39 percent of the average worker’s preretirement earnings"

"We have elderly people living on less than $10,000 a year"

If they had 15% of their preretirement earnings invested in the market over the last 40 years, they'd have a lot more than $10,000 a year in retirement.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Right now Social Security pays out 39 percent of the average worker’s preretirement earnings.

"While jaws may drop inside the Beltway, we could raise that to 50 percent. We’d still be near the bottom of the league of the world’s richest countries — but at least it would be a basement with some food and air.

"We have elderly people living on less than $10,000 a year.

"Is that what Democrats want to 'save'?"

And what Republicans want to privatize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20geoghegan.html?_r=1&hp

"Right now Social Security pays out 39 percent of the average worker’s preretirement earnings"

"We have elderly people living on less than $10,000 a year"

If they had 15% of their preretirement earnings invested in the market over the last 40 years, they'd have a lot more than $10,000 a year in retirement.

That's what the government should have done from the outset. Allow people to set up and invest their own funds--I wouldn't object to having some limits on what sort of investments would be 'legal for a retirement plan--and make contributions up to X amount into these funds tax free and also employer matching funds. Those who start this from the beginning of their work career will retire very comfortably after 40 or 50 years of paying into their fund. And the fund will be theirs.

The same person expecting to retire on social security, however, will find that very very restrictive.

 

[Full-Auto]

"Right now Social Security pays out 39 percent of the average worker’s preretirement earnings.

"While jaws may drop inside the Beltway, we could raise that to 50 percent. We’d still be near the bottom of the league of the world’s richest countries — but at least it would be a basement with some food and air.

"We have elderly people living on less than $10,000 a year.

"Is that what Democrats want to 'save'?"

And what Republicans want to privatize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20geoghegan.html?_r=1&hp

"Right now Social Security pays out 39 percent of the average worker’s preretirement earnings"

"We have elderly people living on less than $10,000 a year"

If they had 15% of their preretirement earnings invested in the market over the last 40 years, they'd have a lot more than $10,000 a year in retirement.

That's what the government should have done from the outset. Allow people to set up and invest their own funds--I wouldn't object to having some limits on what sort of investments would be 'legal for a retirement plan--and make contributions up to X amount into these funds tax free and also employer matching funds. Those who start this from the beginning of their work career will retire very comfortably after 40 or 50 years of paying into their fund. And the fund will be theirs.

The same person expecting to retire on social security, however, will find that very very restrictive.