- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,662
- Reaction score
- 699
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The trust is just an accounting gimmick, it is not a separate pile of cash. It is factually wrong. The Trust is not 'an accounting gimmick'. It has legal implication which will reduce benefits once the Trust Fund is depleted. That is not a gimmick, it is a firewall. The Trust Fund is legally separate. I would suggest that you look at pages 256 and 257 of the current Trustees Report in which they defend the trust fund accounting rather effectively.
If you are trolling for a fight, look elsewhere. If you are having trouble with reading comprehension, I'll see if I can help you out.
The SSA trust fund is indeed factually a gimmick. There is no such thing as a SSA lock box. It only exist on paper. And yes, the paper is a legally binding document, but it does not imply or create a separate pile of cash from the general fund. Since you took the time to use the term "legally separate", we know that you know the cash is indistinguishable from any other cash in the general fund. This means that you do understand the facts, but can't fight the urge to place an empty argument.
I'll type my example slower since it went over your head the first time. If you deposit funds into a bank, the funds go into the bank's general funds and you get a ledger entry. That ledger entry limits what you can draw out. The SSA trust is no different. Through the budget process, they draw their operational cash from the general fund just like every other government agency. And when they reach their limit, they have to cut back, just like every other government agency. Right now, the SSA has a surplus on it's ledger. That means the receipts are more than the expenditures. Somewhere between 2022 and 2034, that surplus will run out, and SSA will have to live within their means.
When I say name-calling I am talking about the Special Debt Obligations to which you said "These Special Issues are what most politicians refer to as IOU's" Why would you introduce the IOU term into your discussion? You want to make these securities seem different from standard government issues. They are different. They have a put option that makes them superior to standard govt securities.
Wow!!! Now you are just trying to be petty. Pointing out how some Politicians refer to the Special Issues is name calling... How far into the bottom of the barrel did you have to reach to scrape that up?
I introduced the term IOU because "These Special Issues are what most politicians refer to as IOU's". Seems pretty self explanatory to me. I simply pointed out that politicians rarely use the term Special Issue. Here, read your statement again and get ready for a laugh: "You want to make these securities seem different from standard government issues. They are different." That's hilarious. Granted, I make mistakes like that too because English is not my first language, but it is still funny. It is still the straw man fallacy you seem to adore, but you are playing it on yourself. I like it.