• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The results are in on social security

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year.

Trustees Report Summary

hey, it's all good

it's in the lockbox

LOL!
 
is 'got out of your way' an expression meaning 'run from a debate which i have lost'?

What makes you think anyone won or lost? Other than the American people, I mean. One of us thinks an IOU is something of value. The other of us thinks that the IOU no longer has value. Time will make clear to all which of us is right.
 
not really. the SS Fund takes a different kind of "security" from the Treasury. as the Office of Management and Budget puts it:

...These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)



but hey, i mean, that's from the Clinton Administration. bunch of right-wing loons, those guys.




Here is the sentence from the paragraph that preceded your cherry pick post.


<Almost all of these balances are invested in Treasury securities and earn interest. Therefore, they effectively represent the value, in current dollars, of taxes and user fees that have been paid in advance for future benefits and services. >


Here is the sentence from the paragraph that followed your cherry pick post.


<Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. >


Here is the link to the PDF(592 pages) I suggest that you read the first part of page 337 and see how Reagan handled a similar problem.:2wave:


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/pdf/spec.pdf
 
.... you do realize the two sections you posted reinforce our point, that this "trust fund" is just smoke and mirrors?

If I can pull out that last sentence in particular: The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

The only way the "trust fund" get's "paid back" is if the general budget stops running Trillion dollar deficits and starts running massive surpluses. Do you see that happening any time soon? If so, there are some guys named Barack and John up in Washington right now that will be very interested in hearing what you have to suggest.
 
Last edited:
.... you do realize the two sections you posted reinforce our point, that this "trust fund" is just smoke and mirrors?

If I can pull out that last sentence in particular: The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

The only way the "trust fund" get's "paid back" is if the general budget stops running Trillion dollar deficits and starts running massive surpluses. Do you see that happening any time soon? If so, there are some guys named Barack and John up in Washington right now that will be very interested in hearing what you have to suggest.


We’ll let the readers decide if what you posted was taken out of context or not.

The post of mine that you were responding to.


Originally Posted by donc

Fact one= Social Security has a $2.6-trillion surplus that is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion in 2023.

Fact two= Social Security invests its surpluses, as it should, in U.S Treasury bonds, the safest interest-bearing securities in the world. The same paper that we sell to China, Japan and other wealthy investors.

Your post.

They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

Your post with the first sentence added.


<Almost all of these balances are invested in Treasury securities and earn interest. Therefore, they effectively represent the value, in current dollars, of taxes and user fees that have been paid in advance for future benefits and services.>

They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.

now the following



<Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. >


Kinda looks to me like you were being just a teeney bit dishonest with that post.:2wave:


So tell me how your post has shown that United States Government issued Treasury bonds are smoke and mirrors.

While your searching for that one, you might want to answer this question that i ask you in post #261.


Show me where we don’t have to pay the holders of what Social Security invests its surpluses in? Treasury bonds.
 
unfunded obligations, social security ALONE, two thousand ten ALONE, grew, increased and expanded by a terrible ONE POINT FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

that must be one enormous lockbox

LOL!

no wonder president barack the slasher hussein HIMSELF came out for CUTS

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post

as a matter of fact, the solvency of social security is so safe, the slasher suggests that without raising our debt ceiling he can't even guarantee checks NEXT MONTH

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

he lost the key?
 
"President Obama said doing nothing about the deficit was not an option, but he said we have to fix the problem with a scalpel, not a machete. For every $1 in tax hikes, the president's plan would cut $2 in spending. The cuts would come from domestic programs, the military, Medicare and Medicaid. He would allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich to expire, and revamp the tax code to lower rates and eliminate loopholes."

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/14/135399662/obama-proposes-tax-hikes-cuts-to-trim-deficit

$2 in spending cuts for every $1 dollar of tax increases. We haven't seen that kind of deficit reduction proposed since the Clinton Administration, which coincidently was the last time we had a balanced budget.
 
"President Obama said doing nothing about the deficit was not an option, but he said we have to fix the problem with a scalpel, not a machete. For every $1 in tax hikes, the president's plan would cut $2 in spending. The cuts would come from domestic programs, the military, Medicare and Medicaid. He would allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich to expire, and revamp the tax code to lower rates and eliminate loopholes."

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/14/135399662/obama-proposes-tax-hikes-cuts-to-trim-deficit

$2 in spending cuts for every $1 dollar of tax increases. We haven't seen that kind of deficit reduction proposed since the Clinton Administration, which coincidently was the last time we had a balanced budget.


I think that this part could be made to look better..."$2 in spending cuts for every $1 dollar of tax increases. "


$1 in spending cuts for every $2 dollar of tax increases. There that's better now.:rock
 

I see that once again that you copied and posted your link without reading it!

From your own link:

"Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April."
 
I think that this part could be made to look better..."$2 in spending cuts for every $1 dollar of tax increases. "


$1 in spending cuts for every $2 dollar of tax increases. There that's better now.:rock

I would go for that but unfortunately we have a pragmatic moderate as president and a very conservative congress. :sun
 
the democrat caucus---unanimously---would not support the president's WRITTEN budget---published in february---because the only blueprint produced by the party in THREE YEARS was supplanted by a STUMP SPEECH at gwu

the president's plan---LOL!

leadership, anyone?
 
the democrat caucus---unanimously---would not support the president's WRITTEN budget---published in february---because the only blueprint produced by the party in THREE YEARS was supplanted by a STUMP SPEECH at gwu

the president's plan---LOL!

leadership, anyone?



http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

No one has come up with a bigger deficit reduction plan, and there is little chance they will now as the Rebumlicans have given up on ambitious deficit reduction in order to save their constituents (the rich) from tax increases.
 
I would go for that but unfortunately we have a pragmatic moderate as president and a very conservative congress. :sun

I don’t know, I think we could get a few conservative aboard with cutting military bases in Europe and letting them protect themselves.:2wave:
 

bowles-simpson?

LOL!

President Obama drew fire Sunday from congressional Republicans and independent budget experts for his reluctance to advance a plan that would tackle the nation's biggest budget problems in the spending blueprint he will submit to Congress on Monday.

In the first statement of his budget priorities since Republicans regained control of the House, Obama will avoid politically dangerous recommendations to wipe out cherished tax breaks and to restrain safety-net programs for the elderly, put forward last year by his own bipartisan fiscal commission as a strategy for reining in a soaring national debt.

White House budget director Jacob J. Lew has told advocates of reform that the White House thinks any significant plan offered by the president would simply become a target for partisan attack. Key Democrats, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), said they accept that rationale. Republicans argued that Obama was abdicating a responsibility to chart a path to solvency.

Obama spending plan criticized for avoiding deficit commission's major proposals/Washington Post

your lack of awareness of what's going on in the news is astonishing

buy a tv
 
I don’t know, I think we could get a few conservative aboard with cutting military bases in Europe and letting them protect themselves.:2wave:

I sure as hell would support that! :sun
 
We’ll let the readers decide if what you posted was taken out of context or not.

The post of mine that you were responding to.




Your post.



Your post with the first sentence added.


<Almost all of these balances are invested in Treasury securities and earn interest. Therefore, they effectively represent the value, in current dollars, of taxes and user fees that have been paid in advance for future benefits and services.>

They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.

now the following



<Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. >


there you go - highlighted the relevant section for you.

again, like I have been saying from the beginning. for Social Security's Trust Fund to mean anything, the rest of the Government (the General Budget) would have to run massive surpluses sufficient to cover those "securities" with extra cash. the General Budget, however, also has to pay for things like Medicare, Obamacare, and the million odd-other things whose costs are exploding to the point where we are running nearly trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

you know how everyone is freaking out right now about the debt ceiling, and what it means if we don't raise it?

all of the cuts that we would have to impose if we never raised the debt ceiling......

.....wouldn't even give us one penny to pay back to the Social Security Trust Fund. We would have to cut more than 40% of current spending just to break even BEFORE we could even consider figuring out how to pay the Social Security Trust Fund.

Kinda looks to me like you were being just a teeney bit dishonest with that post.

then you will have to take it up with the Office of Management and Budget, the Social Security Trustees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare and Medicaid Actuaries, and even now President Obama; because they all agree that there is literally no possible way to pay for our entitlements as they are currently structured.

So tell me how your post has shown that United States Government issued Treasury bonds are smoke and mirrors.

these aren't Treasury Bonds; they can't be traded, bought, or sold. They are internal securities, IOU's. We took money out of our savings account, put it in our checking account, spent it, and made a note to one day pay back the savings. That sticky note is not a dollar. It's an internal memo. As the OMB says (again) that note, held by the Trust Fund "does not consist of a real economic asset".

Show me where we don’t have to pay the holders of what Social Security invests its surpluses in? Treasury bonds.

1. (again) they aren't treasury bonds. they are worthless in and of themselves. it's an IOU note.
2. if, however, you would like to receive these pieces of paper in lieu of actual dollars when your own SS comes due, I urge you to write the Trust Fund and ask for this form of payment. You will find out quickly how much they are worth.
3. you don't have a right to any Social Security payment. Congress can (and will) alter the payment structure to reflect our fiscal reality. in reality land, the Government does not have an extra $17 Trillion lying around. it has negative $14.5 Trillion. The amount of money you would need for the United States Government to be able to fully fund Social Security is larger than the GDP of the United States and every nation in the European Union combined. JUST Social Security - that is assuming no Medicare.
 
there you go - highlighted the relevant section for you.

again, like I have been saying from the beginning. for Social Security's Trust Fund to mean anything, the rest of the Government (the General Budget) would have to run massive surpluses sufficient to cover those "securities" with extra cash. the General Budget, however, also has to pay for things like Medicare, Obamacare, and the million odd-other things whose costs are exploding to the point where we are running nearly trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

you know how everyone is freaking out right now about the debt ceiling, and what it means if we don't raise it?

all of the cuts that we would have to impose if we never raised the debt ceiling......

.....wouldn't even give us one penny to pay back to the Social Security Trust Fund. We would have to cut more than 40% of current spending just to break even BEFORE we could even consider figuring out how to pay the Social Security Trust Fund.



then you will have to take it up with the Office of Management and Budget, the Social Security Trustees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare and Medicaid Actuaries, and even now President Obama; because they all agree that there is literally no possible way to pay for our entitlements as they are currently structured.



these aren't Treasury Bonds; they can't be traded, bought, or sold. They are internal securities, IOU's. We took money out of our savings account, put it in our checking account, spent it, and made a note to one day pay back the savings. That sticky note is not a dollar. It's an internal memo. As the OMB says (again) that note, held by the Trust Fund "does not consist of a real economic asset".



1. (again) they aren't treasury bonds. they are worthless in and of themselves. it's an IOU note.
2. if, however, you would like to receive these pieces of paper in lieu of actual dollars when your own SS comes due, I urge you to write the Trust Fund and ask for this form of payment. You will find out quickly how much they are worth.
3. you don't have a right to any Social Security payment. Congress can (and will) alter the payment structure to reflect our fiscal reality. in reality land, the Government does not have an extra $17 Trillion lying around. it has negative $14.5 Trillion. The amount of money you would need for the United States Government to be able to fully fund Social Security is larger than the GDP of the United States and every nation in the European Union combined. JUST Social Security - that is assuming no Medicare.

From the link and your post,

They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.
[/B]

Let stretch this second sentence out a bit and see if it fits on with what I have been saying in this thread..


Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed,
(Yep, when redeemed, another word for paid, that fits in.) :thumbs:

will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public,
(Whatever, you owe us the bucks, we paid into SS:2wave: all of our working lives, do what you gotta do. Remember, you owed us before you owed China,Japan,the Saudis…all of the rest of the payday loan companies.)


or reducing benefits or other expenditures.
(I guess we could look at this after we checked out how removing the cap and the above tweaks panned out.)

I ask you once again… Show me where we don’t have to pay the holders of what Social Security invests its surpluses in? Treasury bonds.

Do you have anything other than your questionable opinion for an answer? :confused:
 
These Aren't Treasury Bonds. If they were, for example, the President wouldn't be threatning that he can't send out Social Security Checks - because that would be considered part of the National Debt that cannot be defaulted on. Social Security would get paid first along with all of the "other" bondholders.

Treasury Bonds = real economic assets. IOU's in the "trust fund" = not real economic assets. All they are is an IOU.

in order to pay those IOU's, however, the government would have to have more money than we are ever going to get. it is literally impossible to pay those IOU's.

but you tell me. how do you propose to turn a 1.5 trillion deficit into a trillion dollar surplus?

and no, Social Security does not have to be paid. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that - you have no "right" to your benefits.
 
Last edited:
kinda looks like President Clinton's ex secretary of labor has the social security problem figured out.:2wave:



< Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.>


<Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.>

<If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.>


<Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.>

Robert Reich (The Only Social Security Reform Worth Considering: Raising the Ceiling on Income Subject to It)
 
kinda looks like President Clinton's ex secretary of labor has the social security problem figured out.:2wave:



< Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.>


<Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.>

<If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.>


<Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.>

Robert Reich (The Only Social Security Reform Worth Considering: Raising the Ceiling on Income Subject to It)

Exactly! There is no no SS crisis:

"Social Security isn’t responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government."
 
will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public,[/B] (Whatever, you owe us the bucks, we paid into SS:2wave: all of our working lives, do what you gotta do. Remember, you owed us before you owed China,Japan,the Saudis…all of the rest of the payday loan companies.)
You owe yourselves the bucks. You paid into SS and then squandered it on other programs.
 
Exactly! There is no no SS crisis:

"Social Security isn’t responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government."
I think you have your head in the sand. The money is gone. It was replaced by IOUs. We can never make it up. The Ponzi scheme is collapsing.
 
Back
Top Bottom