- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,867
- Reaction score
- 40,131
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Who said it was the same thing as cash? This is the second time you've intentionally misrepresented what I posted. It's a Treasury note and whether it has the same utility as cash or T-bills doesn't change the fact it's a promissory note issued by the Fed. Dollar and T-bills are also promissory noted issued by the Fed. When the Fed decides to stop honoring it's obligations you let me know.
You are mistaking the Fed for Congress. The promissory notes in the SS fund have no value - they aren't tradable (like actual treasury bonds are). Pretending that the Trust Fund represents value is like claiming that your credit card balance should count towards your net assets instead of against it.
I didn't say they were run out of different offices, I said SSA funded Medicare but not Medicaid.
And my point is and continues to be that the two are run out of the same accounting line in the Budget, and that the General Fund continues to cover both, to include its' FICA pay-ins.
So the Fed is going to stop honoring it's obligations?!? How interesting. I wonder if China knows this.
Likely. That's probably why they have shifted into shorter term paper and the SOE's have started issuing dollar-denominated securities at the same time that they are pushing trading partners to drop the dollar as the currency of exchange.
SS is government held savings, not a lot different than an annuity bought over 45+ years of working. It also has the benefit of including a disability policy.
SS is not government held savings, for the simple reason that nothing is saved. What you put in in the form of taxes is immediately spent. You are dependent on others putting money in later if you want any return. Annuity? It's a pyramid scheme with forced participation.
The Treasury notes and accounting are all there. It could be done of Congress wanted to do it.
No, it couldn't. All of the political will in the world doesn't change the fiscal reality that we are not going to be able to afford the commitments we have made in the Social Security Program.
There is no gap in Social Security, there's a gap in other Fed spending that politicians have attempted to bandaid with SSA funds.
yup. Guess we should have been more upset about that at the time - but hey, government spending helps the economy, so let the good times roll! Now it turns out that the Baby Boomers found a way to blow their government retirement fund, just as most of them blew their private funds, and the money isn't there and isn't going to be there, either. Woops.
I've seen the numbers and that thread.
Then you should know that the whole "oh it's too dangerous" schtick isn't going to cut it.
If the Fed stops honoring it's financial obligations it'll be a full-blown, country-wide riot.
You are conflating the necessary reductions in SS expenditures with default, which even then would not result in a full-blown country-wide riot.