WashingtonPost: Social Security, the trust fund and funny money

[Larry]

The whole point is they are just transferring debt...hence the shell game.

"They are just transferring debt" when they borrow money so that they can pay off somebody else.

Unfortunately for your argument (and the argument of the OP), this is true for all US treasury bills Not just the ones owned by SS.

As I pointed out, in post #4, of this thread. (And several times since.)

In short, you (and the OP) haven't presented an argument why the t-bills owned by SS are worthless.

You've presented an argument why all t-bills are worthless.

Perhaps if you understood anything about finance (or any reading comprehension skills) you would have known this.

[Hubbs]

Larry, a couple years back Wells Fargo sued itself over a mortgage. If I had said, "What a worthless lawsuit," would you then spend a great deal of time trying to convince me that I had just called all lawsuits worthless?

[Larry]

Larry, a couple years back Wells Fargo sued itself over a mortgage. If I had said, "What a worthless lawsuit," would you then spend a great deal of time trying to convince me that I had just called all lawsuits worthless?

Ah, back to claiming that when two entities are operated by the same entity, they're the same entity, I see.

[JMS]

I thought thats what i said: only receipt money will be available in 2034 (though the number shrinks every year).

It actually goes up some years and down other years. Projections out further than 10 years are pretty volitile.

What I understood you to be saying was the social security would be running a 25% deficite in 2034. which is not true.

The March report on social security solvency doesn't say that. IT says in 2034 social security will have exhausted it's surplus.. then over the next 50+ years in total it will run on average a 25% deficit. Not that in 2034 it will be in a 25% deficit.

At that point there is no "Extra" money to steal from and use in the General fund as the Gov't likes to do?

Borrowing the funds surplus in exchange for bonds really can't be equated with theft. Today social security taxes do not cover benifits, but the value of the trust is continueing to increase because of the interest on the 3 odd trillion dollars which the Federal government is paying social security.. ( think it's like 4-5%).. So collecting interest from the federal government is really a good deal for the fund. It's much better than keeping that money in a box.

What happens at that point?

And in 1 President from now it is going to be to be 2025

and in 2 Presidents from now it is going to be 'now'.

Social Security has been at risk of going into deficite since it's inception 70 years ago. It was fixed in every decade since the 1950's. Three times in my adult life have politicians from both parties joined together to tweak it up and push back the date of eventual insolvency... I have no doubt they will again, it's only a matter of time...

But worst case let's say they do nothing... so what. Then the general fund will be forced to pay what the bush tax cuts cost us in the last 10 years, to keep social security solvent over the next 70 years..... That's a worst case. It's much more likely they will just raise retirement age by 6 months. slow the cost of living increases a little, and or some other actions. They have done it periodically since the inception of SSN.

highlight and underlines are mine: (why would we not think thats likely)

Because historically Social secuirty has never cost the general fund money. Social security Administration must report monthly on it's prospects over the next 70 years. Those projections regularly forcast fiscal insolvency decades out... To date those projections don't occur because congress always takes action. Projecting a default in this town in 20 years is not a crisis.. We came days maybe hours of defaulting earlier this year; now that's a crisis.... Social Security is a politicla football more than an impending crisis.

[Hubbs]

Ah, back to claiming that when two entities are operated by the same entity, they're the same entity, I see.

I've addressed that. Posted it twice, in fact, since you and chip exchanged so many posts last night. Ball's in your court.

[JMS]

You've presented an argument why all t-bills are worthless.

Exactly... They've basically said the safest investment on the planet (T-Bills) are worthless and offered no evidence as why.... Take our words for it.

---------- Post added April-26th-2012 at 03:01 PM ----------

I've addressed that. Posted it twice, in fact, since you and chip exchanged so many posts last night. Ball's in your court.

Troll. Social Security is an independent branch of the United States Government. They entirely separate finances, and mission. This structure provides social secuirty with greater protection and more stability than say the budget of other branches of the federal government. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it meaningless. It was set up that way for a very real purpose. That makes it meaningful.

[Larry]

I've addressed that.

No, actually, you've asserted that.

It's not true.

And no matter how many ways you try to rephrase it, or "well, if you stand over here", or "how about if I use a different analogy", it still won't be.

[Hubbs]

No, actually, you've asserted that.

It's not true.

And no matter how many ways you try to rephrase it, or "well, if you stand over here", or "how about if I use a different analogy", it still won't be.

Oh, have we moved into the phase of the conversation in which we no longer actually respond to what has been said, but just sit still with our arms crossed and make grandiose statements about someone else's posts? Nobody gave me the signal. But anyway, in that case, all you've done is asserted that it's extra-super-duper-important that we discuss Social Security and the federal government as a whole as if they are not just an apple and an orange, but more like an apple and the International Space Station, all without ever saying why. Your sole mission thus far has been to call several people giant liars and stubborn crybabies, which I'm sure must be somewhat enjoyable but has a startling lack of anything that even remotely resembles a larger point. If I had describe your efforts right now, I would compare them to someone who went on for page after page arguing with people who use the word "data" as if it was in the singular rather than the plural. There simply isn't a reason to care that much about such a thing. And now when directly asked just what it is that is so very important about your fight, you have declined to answer.

Also, your posts smell funny and your real name is Ralph. Hey everyone, Ralph over here's a big, fat liar!

[JMS]

Oh, have we moved into the phase of the conversation in which we no longer actually respond to what has been said, but just sit still with our arms crossed and make grandiose statements about someone else's posts? Nobody gave me the signal. But anyway, in that case, all you've done is asserted that it's extra-super-duper-important that we discuss Social Security and the federal government as a whole as if they are not just an apple and an orange, but more like an apple and the International Space Station, all without ever saying why. Your sole mission thus far has been to call several people giant liars and stubborn crybabies, which I'm sure must be somewhat enjoyable but has a startling lack of anything that even remotely resembles a larger point. If I had describe your efforts right now, I would compare them to someone who went on for page after page arguing with people who use the word "data" as if it was in the singular rather than the plural. There simply isn't a reason to care that much about such a thing. And now when directly asked just what it is that is so very important about your fight, you have declined to answer. Also, your posts smell funny and your real name is Ralph. Hey everyone, Ralph over here's a big, fat liar!

Another Troll, A verbose statement about why you aren't saying anything. Not answering the questions, not clarrifying your position. not adding new incite into your thinking. Just more non denial denials, more evassion, obfuscation, and dodging.

When you are paraphrased you claim it's a mischaracterization of your position. When the person follows through and quotes you citing the post where you made the statement in question you ignore the post. You are just trolling here aren't you... Throwing out a controversial indefensiable stateemnt and then just dancing in the fusilade.

Nobody caled you a liar... As I believe your harshest critic in this thread I've said you were engaged in hypocracy, putting forward ideas which you wouldn't subscribe too in reality..Cleaiming debt is imeaningless while I'm sure you pay your bills every month.

[Larry]

Another Troll, A verbose statement about why you aren't saying anything. Not answering the questions, not clarrifying your position. not adding new incite into your thinking.

Just more non denial denials, more evassion, obfuscation, and dodging.

Nobody caled you a liar... As I believe your harshest critic in this thread I've said you were engaged in hypocracy, putting forward ideas which you wouldn't subscribe too in reality..

Cleaiming debt is imeaningless while I'm sure you pay your bills every month.

Actually, I felt that his post was funny, and was satire.

I think he even succeeded in being funny. I laughed.

(And, frankly, this thread could use a good dose of funny. Like a serious, US Government issue sized dose of funny.)

Frankly, Your use of the word "troll"? That, I don't find funny.

Just my personal, and all that.

[chipwhich]

Perhaps if you understood anything about finance (or any reading comprehension skills) you would have known this.

This is why america is in such a sad state of affairs. It is really discouraging.

You ignore everything I post, including my mom estate example which exemplifies the problem, yet you post something like this.

It's amazing ever person in congress, democrat and republican, understands the issues with Social Security. But Larry on extremeskins doesn't see any problem. Brilliant.

I agree with you over and over t-bills exist. I also never said t-bills are worthless. You can''t understand even the premise.

Larry from extremeskins has figured it out. There is no issue at all, democrats and republicans and independants and libertarians and the like are all idiots because SS is fine even though everyone else on the planet knows its not, and why is it fine? Because the US government secures a t-bill.

Wow. Now I am enlightened

[Thiebear]

It actually goes up some years and down other years. Projections out further than 10 years are pretty volitile.

What I understood you to be saying was the social security would be running a 25% deficite in 2034. which is not true.

The March report on social security solvency doesn't say that. IT says in 2034 social security will have exhausted it's surplus.. then over the next 50+ years in total it will run on average a 25% deficit. Not that in 2034 it will be in a 25% deficit.

Borrowing the funds surplus in exchange for bonds really can't be equated with theft. Today social security taxes do not cover benifits, but the value of the trust is continueing to increase because of the interest on the 3 odd trillion dollars which the Federal government is paying social security.. ( think it's like 4-5%).. So collecting interest from the federal government is really a good deal for the fund. It's much better than keeping that money in a box.

Social Security has been at risk of going into deficite since it's inception 70 years ago. It was fixed in every decade since the 1950's. Three times in my adult life have politicians from both parties joined together to tweak it up and push back the date of eventual insolvency... I have no doubt they will again, it's only a matter of time...

But worst case let's say they do nothing... so what. Then the general fund will be forced to pay what the bush tax cuts cost us in the last 10 years, to keep social security solvent over the next 70 years..... That's a worst case. It's much more likely they will just raise retirement age by 6 months. slow the cost of living increases a little, and or some other actions. They have done it periodically since the inception of SSN.

Because historically Social secuirty has never cost the general fund money. Social security Administration must report monthly on it's prospects over the next 70 years. Those projections regularly forcast fiscal insolvency decades out... To date those projections don't occur because congress always takes action. Projecting a default in this town in 20 years is not a crisis.. We came days maybe hours of defaulting earlier this year; now that's a crisis.... Social Security is a politicla football more than an impending crisis.

I and the Administrator of the Social Security fund disagree with just about everything you posted above.

1. Social Security in the last 5 years has only been going down.

2. Social Security is costing the General Fund money RIGHT NOW! (we are funding SS while we have the 6.5 down to 4.2% reduction in personal contributions).

3. You keep saying 70 years, but the Administrators of the Funds do say 22 years and it people are shocked every year that it continues to drop by several years each report.

4. the Administrator of the fund stated SS receipts will only make up for 75% of what is payed out: The other 25% will need to be made up from the General Fund or we need to change the SS process. (means testing, age change, tax increase).

Stop using the Bush Tax cuts as an example: The Gov't has MADE more in receipts during the Bush tax cuts than before. Taking in historically high receipts does not equal a deficit. Or are you saying that if we UNDO the Bush tax cuts we will magically take in 'more than the historically high receipts"? Which i would then point you back to the government website that shows before the tax cuts receipts were lower.

USA Today: (Not a conservative rag): This year, Social Security will collect $507 billion in taxes and pay out $640 billion in benefits. The difference will have to be borrowed, adding to the federal deficit.

President Obama has largely ignored or downplayed the problem, except when he's making it worse by supporting the payroll tax cuts.

Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has bravely proposed an increase in the retirement age and a less generous formula for calculating cost-of-living increases, but his ideas remain unspecific and look to be insufficient.

[Larry]

This is why america is in such a sad state of affairs. It is really discouraging.

You ignore everything I post, including my mom estate example which exemplifies the problem, yet you post something like this.

It's amazing ever person in congress, democrat and republican, understands the issues with Social Security. But Larry on extremeskins doesn't see any problem. Brilliant.

I agree with you over and over t-bills exist. I also never said t-bills are worthless. You can''t understand even the premise.

Larry from extremeskins has figured it out. There is no issue at all, democrats and republicans and independants and libertarians and the like are all idiots because SS is fine even though everyone else on the planet knows its not, and why is it fine? Because the US government secures a t-bill.

Wow. Now I am enlightened

Figured I'd wait till the next morning, in the hopes that you will have taken your fingers out of your ears and stopped yelling "La la la la I can't hear you"

And I love the "You ignore everything I post" part.

Real irony there, considering that

1) You quoted a post of mine, in which I quoted a post of yours, and responded to it.

2) But, when you quoted my post, you removed the part where I responded to you, and ignored the fact that I pointed out (and which you desperately want to ignore.)

----------

Now, I can't respond to the points you made, in this post. (Because you didn't make any points in this post. Just insults.)

So I guess all I can do is to point to the point that I made. The one that you trimmed out of my post, so you could go on your rant.

"They are just transferring debt" when they borrow money so that they can pay off somebody else.

Unfortunately for your argument (and the argument of the OP), this is true for all US treasury bills Not just the ones owned by SS.

As I pointed out, in post #4, of this thread. (And several times since.)

Now: The statement that, "when a t-bill is presented for redemption, the government has to go out and borrow money from someone else, to pay it", is equally true for all t-bills

True or false?

[chipwhich]

Good one Larry, still ignoring my mom estate scenario because you have no response.

I answered everything you asked, agreed t-bils have value, agreed they exist, agreed the trust fund is not a mythical entity.

You like too play semantic games and not address the OP or my mom estate example.

Typical.

I will again answer yet another of your questions while awaiting your response to the mom estate scenario which describes the shell game that is social security.

When a t-bill is presented for redemption the government pays the redemption value. Where it gets the money is dependent on whether it has the money to redeem it or not. It gets the money either by borrowing or by payment from treasury.

I keep siding with you that a t-bill is real Larry.

Mom's estate?

[Larry]

When a t-bill is presented for redemption the government pays the redemption value. Where it gets the money is dependent on whether it has the money to redeem it or not. It gets the money either by borrowing or by payment from treasury.

Then your assertion, that when a t-bill owned by SS is presented, the government borrows the money from somewhere else, therefore the t-bill owned by SS is "just transferring debt", is actually an assertion that when a t-bill, regardless of the owner, is presented, the government borrows the money from somewhere else, therefore the t-bill, regardless of the owner, from security is "just transferring debt".

Isn't it?

[chipwhich]

Then your assertion, that when a t-bill owned by SS is presented, the government borrows the money from somewhere else, therefore the t-bill owned by SS is "just transferring debt", is actually an assertion that when a t-bill, regardless of the owner, is presented, the government borrows the money from somewhere else, therefore the t-bill, regardless of the owner, from security is "just transferring debt".

Isn't it?

When will you answer one of my questions?

When you borrow money from the chinese via a t-bill you get an influx of cash you don't have.

When you use your own money and exchange it for a t-bill, that is an accounting procedure. You aren't getting in an influx of new cash, you are creatively accounting for it. In the case of the trust fund, it is simply an accounting procedure to push debt out into the future in hopes of never paying it.

Answer my question. You can't.

[Larry]

When you borrow money from the chinese via a t-bill you get an influx of cash you don't have.

1) That's true, whether you're borrowing the money to fund the General Revenue fund, or borrowing it so you can redeem a bond held by SS, isn't it?

2) Your point wasn't about whether it was "just transferring debt" when the t-bill is sold. It was that it was "just transferring debt" when the bond is redeemed. And that's true, regardless of who's redeeming the bond, isn't it?

Please be consistent. Are you claiming that a t-bill is "just transferring debt", when it's sold, or when it's redeemed?

[twa]

As someone who regularly borrows from and pays to myself this is a fascinating back and forth.

Chipwich is just wondering what you are gonna do when the account you are withdrawing fund from runs out

[Larry]

Recall reading a collection of funny newspaper ads that have actually run. One was:

WANTED: Person who is paid on Monday and broke by Friday. To exchange small personal loans with person who is paid on Friday and broke by Monday.

[chipwhich]

1) That's true, whether you're borrowing the money to fund the General Revenue fund, or borrowing it so you can redeem a bond held by SS, isn't it?

2) Your point wasn't about whether it was "just transferring debt" when the t-bill is sold. It was that it was "just transferring debt" when the bond is redeemed. And that's true, regardless of who's redeeming the bond, isn't it?

Please be consistent. Are you claiming that a t-bill is "just transferring debt", when it's sold, or when it's redeemed?

When you answer my question, I will respond further. I can't semantically joust with you if you can't answer the estate question.

What ya gonna do when your siblings want their money and you spent it all.

[JMS]

duplicate response.

[JMS]

(And, frankly, this thread could use a good dose of funny. Like a serious, US Government issue sized dose of funny.)

Frankly, Your use of the word "troll"? That, I don't find funny.

Just my personal, and all that.

I didn't take it as funny, ( hubbs statement ). I don't think the topic is funny.

Many people in this country, maybe even the majority believe Social Secuirty is in crisis; believe that social secuirty is a threat to bankrupt the country. Disinformation, and false information on this topic is rampant. This is a panic issue for many people. The entire social security "crisis" is being used to focus people away from the real issue which threatens to bankrupt us, which is healthcare. Hubbs is putting forward vague generalities and falsehoods in this thread and then alternatively is evasive or obstinant when you try to discuss these statements with him. If he's trying to be funny, the troll label applies. He's pursuing this thread not to discuss the topic or expand the discussion, but to creat more controversy.

If that's not his agenda then he's just being obtuse, and again the troll label applies.

I think Social Security is a very important and poorly understood issue in this country. It's worthy of a serious discussion.

[Larry]

When you answer my question, I will respond further. I can't semantically joust with you if you can't answer the estate question.

What ya gonna do when your siblings want their money and you spent it all.

Your estate question isn't a question.

It's a rambling, invalid analogy and a thinly veiled attempt to call me a thief.

You want to discuss social security, I'm willing to do that.

You want to call me a thief, I ain't playing.

Edit: Tell you what. I'll even rub your nose in the first two reasons why your analogy is invalid:

1) If I "loan myself" money from my Mom's bank account, I'm committing a crime. A criminal offense. (At least, I sincerely hope that the State of Florida has laws to prevent elderly people's caregivers from looting the estates of the people they're caring for.)

Social Security, OTOH, is legally required to invest their surplus funds in US Government bonds. A fiduciary responsibility to the citizens, for whom the money is being held, in trust.

(This distinction is based in the recognized fact that US Government bonds are a slightly safer investment than a personal loan to Larry. Another problem with your analogy.)

2) Your analogy that loaning someone money, and the person you loan it to then spends it also fails the "this is true of all t-bills" test.

The analogy of "somebody borrows the money, and then spends the money" is true of all t-bills, not just the ones owned by SS, isn't it?

[chipwhich]

You want to call me a thief, I ain't playing.

There you go Larry, playing semantic games.

I assumed you have some sort of power of attorney if your dad is in a home.

You wont address the scenario because it is exactly what is happening in SS, and you don't know how to defend it. SHELL GAME.

My estate example is exactly what ss is doing, but here is the real fun part. Whoever controls the gold makes the rules. So what does the government do to this trust fund when money is starting to fall short? You know the trust fund that someone compared to the equivalent of an IBM. They change the rules. Just as you are inferring. Instead of the trust fund t-bills ever coming due, push the age to receive benefits further and further out. That way we never have to repay that debt.

You can't do that with the chinese t-bills.

1) If I "loan myself" money from my Mom's bank account, I'm committing a crime. A criminal offense. (At least, I sincerely hope that the State of Florida has laws to prevent elderly people's caregivers from looting the estates of the people they're caring for.)

You claimed you managed your parents estate, if so you would have a power of attorney, if not you misrepresented yourself. You couldn't loan yourself money without a power of attorney.

But if you had your name on your Dads account like you claimed, then you can have every access to that account that he has so it is not a crime.

Stop playing semantics.

You have already suggested raising retirement age to avoid t-bills ever coming due. As I have said before, lets just push the age to 90, then SS will be no problem at all. t-bills will never come due. But those pesky chinese ones will.

---------- Post added April-27th-2012 at 10:50 AM ----------

I didn't take it as funny, ( hubbs statement ). I don't think the topic is funny.

Many people in this country, maybe even the majority believe Social Secuirty is in crisis; believe that social secuirty is a threat to bankrupt the country. Disinformation, and false information on this topic is rampant. This is a panic issue for many people. The entire social security "crisis" is being used to focus people away from the real issue which threatens to bankrupt us, which is healthcare. Hubbs is putting forward vague generalities and falsehoods in this thread and then alternatively is evasive or obstinant when you try to discuss these statements with him. If he's trying to be funny, the troll label applies. He's pursuing this thread not to discuss the topic or expand the discussion, but to creat more controversy.

If that's not his agenda then he's just being obtuse, and again the troll label applies.

I think Social Security is a very important and poorly understood issue in this country. It's worthy of a serious discussion.

Oh you can't discuss the social security problem when there is a health care problem.

Gotcha.

[Larry]

There you go Larry, playing semantic games.

There ya go, trimming out the parts of my post you want to ignore, and claiming that pesky things like criminal laws are "semantic games"

Yes, I have power of attorney, from both my parents.

That power gives me the authority to manage their finds for their benefit. Not for mine.

I'm pretty certain (I confess, I'm not certain. But I really, really, hope) that there are criminal penalties for trustees transferring the assets of the funds they have control over, to themselves.

----------

Now, how about responding to the parts of my post that you trimmed out?

You know, like the fact that your "the government borrowed the money, and then spent it" analogy is true of all t-bills? (Just like the other arguments that you won't admit facts about.)

----------

Or, how about admitting the fact that your previous argument (the "when a t-bill is redeemed, the government has to borrow the money somewhere else" also fails the "applies to all t-bills" test?

You know. The point that I've been making since post #4 in this thread, and that you still won't admit is a fact?

The one that you pulled "I refuse to admit that my argument fails unless you discuss my other argument, that fails in the same way", to try to avoid?