WashingtonPost: Social Security, the trust fund and funny money

[chipwhich]

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?

Larry, you haven't answered a single question I have asked you. Not one. I have answered honestly all of your questions and agreed to you about t-bills.

But t-bills is missing the forest for the trees. I can't semantically joust with you.

If you want to discuss how and why social security is a shell game, i have explained it ad nauseum. I can't continue to nit pick because I use the term IOU, or I give you a legitimate example with your moms estate, of which you turn into a discussion on whether you are a thief.

If we can't discuss this in the framework of a scenario then there is no point.

I have agreed with everything you said regarding everything you said.

I answer answer answer.

But if you can't be honest and discuss a scenario, I can't go back and forth any longer.

I know you know what the problem is. You even suggest raising the retirement age and raising the payroll tax age to push the debt out into never. You make those suggestions yourself. So you either don't understand why your suggestions are backing up my posts, or you are just being obtuse.

[JMS]

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.

Why start the cycle when China buys the t-bills? Why not start the cycle where it actually starts.. China, via "free trade", sells 30-50 billion dollars of product inside the United States in a month, and supresses our exports via restrictive import duties. So that China is left with a pile of money and nothing to do with it. They can hoard it in their central bank, in which case the money just languishes and diminishes via inflationary preasures. They can purchase US products but until just recently they saw this as suppressing their own industries and refused to do that. They can purchase commodities such as gold or silver but those types of investments are at record highs and are as likely to loose 10-20% as they are to gain 10-20%. They can buy American companies/ stocks but those two are vulnerable and wholesale purchasing of American companies of the size China would need, are regulated by congress and set off xenophobia which threaten China's otherwise sweetheart trade arrangements. What China is left with is to invest in US Treasury bonds. They are relatively liquid, they are large enough to handle the surpusses. US treasuries may not pay much interest because they are in such demand, but they are very safe and China can be sure they're principle will be secure.

So China buys US treasury bills basically for their own purposes. Because it is the best thing they can do having ruled out buying products.. ( until just recently)..

This decision by China's leadership has had dramatic effects in our economy. (1) it's crushed our industries. (2) It's made US borrowing extreamly cheap. (3) It's supressed US revenue.

These are realities which are not entirely in our ability to control. They are realities which we are faced with an array of reactive choices which can be classified as lesser of various evils.

When you use your own money and exchange it for a t-bill, that is an accounting procedure.

Only by law Social Security is not part of the revenue which funds our government's annual budget. As for an "accouinting procedure", like accounting procedures aren't important.. are the foundation of our entire monitary system.

You aren't getting in an influx of new cash, you are creatively accounting for it.

Here is the deal... China buying US Treasury bills isn't an influx of new cash either... both selling T-bills to SS or China represents US government borrowing US dollars which started here.

In the case of China the interest goes to china, and again that intrest returns here in the form of them purchasing new t-bills.. ( until just recently..)..

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.

The US is fully capable of paying off all it's debt. The current syphone we find our selves in is really not all of our own making, and it's beginning to change... We can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Answer my question. You can't.

Think I did. Please respond with a serious reply.

---------- Post added April-27th-2012 at 11:12 AM ----------

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

Gotcha.

Social Security deficit for the next 70 years is supposed to be about 3 trillion dollars total ($2.8 trillion). We spend about 3 trillion dollars annually in healthcare... 1 trillion of that healthcare expense is waste based upon a per capita comparison with other industrialized countries.... In the next 8 years those numbers will move close to 5 trillion annual healthcare costs, with about 2 trillion in waste as healthcare continues to consume the nations GDP..

When I grew up healthcare costs us 4% of GDP.. . Under Reagain it was 8% GDP... When Obama took office it was 15% of GDP... In 2020 that's projected to be 20% of GDP. You getting the trend?

Healthcare in 2008 was projected to bankrupt the country in 2024. Social Security will never bankrupt the country.

Social Security is not in crisis, it's not even in trouble by Washington DC standards. The program is seventy years old, we make projections on it's future monthly going 70 years out.

In those seventy years the social security deficites are projected to be modest and affordable. But we have options to avoid even those modest deficites.

My underlying point is Social Security Crisis talk is a destraction, not a real issue. It's a tool for working up the unwashed masses into a frothy frendzy to do something stupid, like dismantling the program.... I think the facts bare that out.

---------- Post added April-27th-2012 at 11:16 AM ----------

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.

And the reason that's great for the Social Security Fund is because US T-Bills are the safest investment in the world. It's a very conservative mandate for the funds surpluses, yet still yields the funds billions annually....

This year social security is expected to run a deficit... Revenue from income levies(taxes) are expected to not cover benifits.. Only the overall fund this year will still get larger. The reason is the interest the US government pays on the 3 trillion social security has already invested in T-bills will more than cover the deficit in 2012.

---------- Post added April-27th-2012 at 11:20 AM ----------

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.

I think you are touching a sensitive topic. Anybody acting as the primary caregiver to another adult is going to be forced to make hard financial decisions for that person.

I think what you are hearing from larry is he's not comfortable even entertaining your hypothesis. Find a new metaphore, not so close to home...

[Larry]

Larry, you haven't answered a single question I have asked you. Not one.

I'm sorry. I just realized that I've been misjudging you, for some time. I apologize.

You see, I keep making posts in which I respond to your points, and point out why they're invalid.

And you keep quoting part of my posts, without my responses to you, and yelling that I never responded at all.

Obviously, there is something wrong with your computer. Some virus or script or some technical-sounding thing, which is going through my posts, and only my posts, and blocking my responses, and my facts, but only those parts of my posts ,and preventing those facts from reaching your monitor.

I suppose that this magical editor could be somewhere in the internet, blocking those facts from ever reaching your computer. That could explain it too. Or maybe the problem is in the ES server. Obviously, I have no way of knowing where, in the chain, this editing force is removing those points, responses, and facts, and preventing them from reaching you (and, I assume, only you.)

I also suppose that it's possible that this magical fact-removing force is blocking my computer from

posting

these facts, and these facts are never reaching the ES servers in the first place. But I can see these facts, in my own posts. Maybe this fact-removing filter is removing these facts from my posts, and then re-inserting the removed facts, using my exact wording, back into the posts, when I view my own posts.

Has anybody else noticed that I've been pointing out that the government has to borrow, to redeem t-bills, for all t-bills, not just the ones that SS owns? I'm trying to troubleshoot this filtering software, to see if it's in my computer.

Obviously, the reason why you have never once admitted that your claim that, when SS redeems a t-bill, the government borrows the money from somewhere else, to redeem the bill, (and that, therefore, they are "just transferring debt"), applies equally to all t-bills, not just the ones owned by SS, is because this filtering software has prevented you from reading it, despite the fact that I've pointed it out probably a dozen times.

And here, all along, I'd been under the mistaken belief that you were simply a liar, editing out the responses I made to you, and then claiming that they had never been made, at all.

I apologize. I've seriously misjudged you.

If you want to discuss how and why social security is a shell game, i have explained it ad nauseum.

Untrue.

What you have done is to ladle out nauseating insults, and to post analogies to shell games, and then claim that the analogy is proof.

"Pretend that the government is a thief who steals your money" "Look, I just proved that the US Government is a thief that steals your money".

If we can't discuss this in the framework of a scenario then there is no point.

Yes, I understand that you desperately demand that I join you in pretend, analogy, land. That you absolutely refuse to discuss the actual situation.

I have agreed with everything you said regarding everything you said.

Really? Could you quote, for me, the post in which you admitted that my posting the fact that the argument, made by both you and the OP, that when SS redeems a t-bill, the government has to borrow the money somewhere else, and that therefore, the t-bills owned by SS are "just transferring debt", applies equally to all t-bills, is, in fact, a fact?

Maybe the filtering software has removed your responses, to the replies I've made to you, that you claim I haven't made.

But if you can't be honest and discuss a scenario, I can't go back and forth any longer.

I understand. That filtering software removing all of the responses I've made to you, and preventing you from ever seeing them, must have caused you to think that I had never once responded to you. Because the filtering software is preventing you from seeing my responses.

I forgive you for calling me dishonest, and for claiming that I've never responded to you, while at the same time posting partial quotes of my posts, with my responses to your posts missing from the quotes. I can see how the filtering software, that's been blocking you from seeing those parts of my posts, must have caused it to look like that, from your end.

I'm going to assume that you aren't quoting me, and then removing my responses to you from my posts, and then claiming that I've never made such responses, and calling me dishonest. I'm going to assume that it's the filtering software's fault.

----------

I sure hope that the filtering software isn't programmed to delete any reference I make to it, to try to prevent you from becoming aware of it's influence. I hope that all of this post makes it to you.

[chipwhich]

Larry,

It's because going around and around about what a t-bill is misses the the ENTIRE point of the article.

I tried playing your semantic games to get you into the realm of the scenario, but you continue to semantically joust.

It's obvious you don't understand what the problem is, so you grasp at what you understand. A t-bill. But that is irrelevant to the OP.

---------- Post added April-27th-2012 at 12:53 PM ----------

Why start the cycle when China buys the t-bills? Why not start the cycle where it actually starts.. China, via "free trade", sells 30-50 billion dollars of product inside the United States in a month, and supresses our exports via restrictive import duties. So that China is left with a pile of money and nothing to do with it. They can hoard it in their central bank, in which case the money just languishes and diminishes via inflationary preasures. They can purchase US products but until just recently they saw this as suppressing their own industries and refused to do that. They can purchase commodities such as gold or silver but those types of investments are at record highs and are as likely to loose 10-20% as they are to gain 10-20%. They can buy American companies/ stocks but those two are vulnerable and wholesale purchasing of American companies of the size China would need, are regulated by congress and set off xenophobia which threaten China's otherwise sweetheart trade arrangements. What China is left with is to invest in US Treasury bonds. They are relatively liquid, they are large enough to handle the surpusses. US treasuries may not pay much interest because they are in such demand, but they are very safe and China can be sure they're principle will be secure.

So China buys US treasury bills basically for their own purposes. Because it is the best thing they can do having ruled out buying products.. ( until just recently)..

This decision by China's leadership has had dramatic effects in our economy. (1) it's crushed our industries. (2) It's made US borrowing extreamly cheap. (3) It's supressed US revenue.

These are realities which are not entirely in our ability to control. They are realities which we are faced with an array of reactive choices which can be classified as lesser of various evils.

A good topic for another thread.

Only by law Social Security is not part of the revenue which funds our government's annual budget. As for an "accouinting procedure", like accounting procedures aren't important.. are the foundation of our entire monitary system.

Where does the FICA revenue the US collects go?

Here is the deal... China buying US Treasury bills isn't an influx of new cash either... both selling T-bills to SS or China represents US government borrowing US dollars which started here.

In the case of China the interest goes to china, and again that intrest returns here in the form of them purchasing new t-bills.. ( until just recently..)..

Again, a topic for another thread. Good topic.

The US is fully capable of paying off all it's debt. The current syphone we find our selves in is really not all of our own making, and it's beginning to change... We can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Think I did. Please respond with a serious reply.

Again this is about the SS shell game.

Social Security deficit for the next 70 years is supposed to be about 3 trillion dollars total ($2.8 trillion). We spend about 3 trillion dollars annually in healthcare... 1 trillion of that healthcare expense is waste based upon a per capita comparison with other industrialized countries.... In the next 8 years those numbers will move close to 5 trillion annual healthcare costs, with about 2 trillion in waste as healthcare continues to consume the nations GDP..

When I grew up healthcare costs us 4% of GDP.. . Under Reagain it was 8% GDP... When Obama took office it was 15% of GDP... In 2020 that's projected to be 20% of GDP. You getting the trend?

Healthcare in 2008 was projected to bankrupt the country in 2024. Social Security will never bankrupt the country.

I agree healthcare is a crisis.

Social Security is not in crisis, it's not even in trouble by Washington DC standards. The program is seventy years old, we make projections on it's future monthly going 70 years out.

In those seventy years the social security deficites are projected to be modest and affordable. But we have options to avoid even those modest deficites.

By raising the retirement age, you are pushing out paying off the debt until never, it's becoming a tax which is used for the general operations of the government.

My underlying point is Social Security Crisis talk is a destraction, not a real issue. It's a tool for working up the unwashed masses into a frothy frendzy to do something stupid, like dismantling the program.... I think the facts bare that out.

I am not in a frenzy about it, its just a revenue stream that the government gets to control however they want. So if they want to reduce SS benefits, not pay SS benefits, raise retirement age, etc....well the government makes the rules and can push out reimbursement of those t-bills to never.

And the reason that's great for the Social Security Fund is because US T-Bills are the safest investment in the world. It's a very conservative mandate for the funds surpluses, yet still yields the funds billions annually....

Why not let part of the money people pay in be in personal accounts. I can tell you why if you like.

I think you are touching a sensitive topic. Anybody acting as the primary caregiver to another adult is going to be forced to make hard financial decisions for that person.

I think what you are hearing from larry is he's not comfortable even entertaining your hypothesis. Find a new metaphore, not so close to home...

He brought up the metaphore, not me.

[PeterMP]

By raising the retirement age, you are pushing out paying off the debt until never, it's becoming a tax which is used for the general operations of the government.

But isn't that what it essentially was for a pretty long time?

Isn't NOT pushing back the retirment age so that it is in line w/ increases in life expectancy really what would be different?

[Larry]

Larry,

It's because going around and around about what a t-bill is misses the the ENTIRE point of the article.

Funny. I could have sworn that

1. the very opening line of the OP, was to point out that the US Government does not ave cash sitting around in a checking account, with which to redeem the t-bills owned by SS. And that the very next sentence in the OP was "In other words, the trust fund is of no economic value. ".
   
2. And that you, yourself, have dedicated several posts to the point that the US Government does not have cash sitting around with which to redeem the t-bills owned by SS. (And still refuse to acknowledge that that statement applies to all t-bills, not just the ones owned by SS.)

In short, I think that roughly 1/3 of this thread has been spent with people pointing out the undisputed fact that the US Government does not have money sitting around with which to redeem the t-bills owned by SS, and refusing to acknowledge that this is true for all t-bills.

Perhaps if you'd care to run away from the irrational point you've been pushing for what seems like the last week, and introduce some new argument? One that makes sense?

I'll even go along with the fiction that it was what you (and the OP) have been saying all along.

You want to try to make a better argument? It's perfectly fine with me. Frankly, this horse isn't even attracting flies, any more.

Just state the argument.

Not some "well, pretend that a thief steals your money, and then he does this, and then he does this, and then he does . . . "

State an argument. One that's about SS and the trust fund.

This means, pointing out something about the fund that isn't true for every single t-bill.

That also means, leaving out the insults. I'm tired of the non-stop personal attack that you've been pointing at me since your very first post in the thread. A post which did not contain a single point, but was nothing but a personal attack

Like this one:

It's obvious you don't understand what the problem is

[gbear]

OK, here's an odd question:

There are many on here who say nationalizing social security would send the message our T-Bills are worthless because it would be like the government saying "we're not paying back these obligations." I can see how that could dramatically undermine our economy.

What happens if we (the Fed) just pushes a button and creates enough money to instantly pay off the debt owed to SS? In that scenario, no additional money enters circulation, and we halt the need to barrow money to pay another branch of the federal government interest? If the money never goes into circulation, will it still cause inflation? Would this preserve the value of the t-bills which we still need to be able to sell as long as we run a defecit?

[Thiebear]

Could Larry and Chipwich take their back and forth to PM. We get it.

[Larry]

OK, here's an odd question:

There are many on here who say nationalizing social security would send the message our T-Bills are worthless because it would be like the government saying "we're not paying back these obligations." I can see how that could dramatically undermine our economy.

I haven't seen a single person make that claim. In this thread, or any other.

I certainly don't believe it.

What happens if we (the Fed) just pushes a button and creates enough money to instantly pay off the debt owed to SS? In that scenario, no additional money enters circulation

Uh, in that scenario, yes, you are creating additional money. (I suppose you can argue about whether it's "in circulation" or not.

and, 2) Once you've created this money, what do you do with it? Does SS just stick a pile of $100 bills the size of the Capital building in a closet somewhere?

[JMS]

Where does the FICA revenue the US collects go?

it all goes into the social security trust by law, or goes to pay for social security overhead.

By raising the retirement age, you are pushing out paying off the debt until never, it's becoming a tax which is used for the general operations of the government.

Depends how much revenue you put into it. You could "fix" social security revenue such that the fund would never go into the red, yet all the bonds would be consumed..

I am not in a frenzy about it, its just a revenue stream that the government gets to control however they want. So if they want to reduce SS benefits, not pay SS benefits, raise retirement age, etc....well the government makes the rules and can push out reimbursement of those t-bills to never.

If borrowing money can be seen as revenue

Why not let part of the money people pay in be in personal accounts. I can tell you why if you like.

Because the solvency of the fund is based upon continued contributions. If you do away with the continued contributions you destroy the fund.

[twa]

Oh sure , raise the rate, cut the benefits and delay when I receive benefits

Sure wish I was on the narrow end of this pyramid

[chipwhich]

it all goes into the social security trust by law, or goes to pay for social security overhead.

I know where it goes. So they have a cash stash in there? Just trying to flush out where the cash ends up.

Because the solvency of the fund is based upon continued contributions. If you do away with the continued contributions you destroy the fund.

Well the real reason is because if you gave a portion of money to peoples personal accounts then control of the money is lessened. Plus it breaks the scheme known as the SSTF.

[PeterMP]

Oh sure , raise the rate, cut the benefits and delay when I receive benefits

Sure wish I was on the narrow end of this pyramid

Have more kids.

[twa]

Have more kids.

Why do you think I oppose abortion?.... somebody's gotta pay for my old age

Young people today with their game consoles,cell phones and 22' rims and wanting free contraceptives ....Slackers....get busy working and making babies .:soapbox:

[DeanCollins]

the answer is simple, end government and military retirement payments

[DeanCollins]

/Thread awesome!

[Hubbs]

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.

First of all, I need to thank you, for both laughing and seeing that my lame attempts at comedy were, in fact, lame attempts at comedy. Seems to me that most political threads could use a little defusing.

That said, I was going for the same sort of angle that Colbert goes for when he asks for an Emmy. In other words, he makes some jokes, but at the end of the day, there's sort of a "But seriously, you should really give me an Emmy" vibe.

In this case, I wanted there to be a "But seriously, I really have no idea why you're continuing to make your argument" vibe.

I assume by your lack of dispute that you don't disagree with my statements about the trust fund's "interest income" being irrelevant on the large scale, and similarly that you don't disagree that the trust fund doesn't affect the retirement age, nor does it affect benefits, nor does it affect debt held by the public, all in terms of the super-duper-important contrast to what those numbers would be if the trust fund didn't exist in the first place. So I ask, again... what in the world are you fighting for? Are you seriously campaigning to somehow "force" other ES members to swap "the SS trust fund doesn't exist" with "the SS trust fund doesn't exist for any significant purpose or really even any meaningful technicality, other than the fact that Larry wants me to have to write all of this out every single time I post in any thread that has to do with Social Security, and therefore I'm doing that because otherwise we would spend the next 27 pages arguing about whether or not a certain number in a certain Excel spreadsheet meets our arbitrary standards of relevance for the purposes of the general finances of the United States government"? What are you trying to save? What cause are you fighting for here?

[Hubbs]

Could Larry and Chipwich take their back and forth to PM. We get it.

I actually disagree, I think this stuff needs to be settled once and for all in public, because it seems that we can't have a conversation about Social Security in the Tailgate without this dispute coming up. It needs to reach a conclusion.

[Hubbs]

Bumping for an answer....

[chipwhich]

Bumping for an answer....

What answer do you want? Larry wont allow it to be answered because he insists on playing semantic games.

When trying to enter into any discussion with him about SS, he always goes down the t-bill rat hole, which we all get.

[Larry]

First of all, I need to thank you, for both laughing and seeing that my lame attempts at comedy were, in fact, lame attempts at comedy. Seems to me that most political threads could use a little defusing.

That said, I was going for the same sort of angle that Colbert goes for when he asks for an Emmy. In other words, he makes some jokes, but at the end of the day, there's sort of a "But seriously, you should really give me an Emmy" vibe.

In this case, I wanted there to be a "But seriously, I really have no idea why you're continuing to make your argument" vibe.

I assume by your lack of dispute that you don't disagree with my statements about the trust fund's "interest income" being irrelevant on the large scale, and similarly that you don't disagree that the trust fund doesn't affect the retirement age, nor does it affect benefits, nor does it affect debt held by the public, all in terms of the super-duper-important contrast to what those numbers would be if the trust fund didn't exist in the first place. So I ask, again... what in the world are you fighting for? Are you seriously campaigning to somehow "force" other ES members to swap "the SS trust fund doesn't exist" with "the SS trust fund doesn't exist for any significant purpose or really even any meaningful technicality, other than the fact that Larry wants me to have to write all of this out every single time I post in any thread that has to do with Social Security, and therefore I'm doing that because otherwise we would spend the next 27 pages arguing about whether or not a certain number in a certain Excel spreadsheet meets our arbitrary standards of relevance for the purposes of the general finances of the United States government"? What are you trying to save? What cause are you fighting for here?

Sorry. Your "question" seems to actually be about a dozen claims, and I really didn't want to try to go hrough your oost, extract each individual sentance, and insert responses between each of them.

Instead, I'll try to make a brief, generic, response to what I think is the iverall theme of your post.

The existence of them trust fund is important for the exact same reason why thre is an attempt to deny its existence. It's politics by lying.

You are correct. The government could eliminate SS completely, tomorrow, by a simple majority vote. The existence of the trust fund does not in any way prevent that.

However, the trust fund prevents the government from doing that AND CLAIMING THAT IT DID IT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY MONEY. (Well, it prevents the claim from being TRUE. As we're seeing in this very thread, there are lots of people who are willing to claim it, when it isn't true).

We've been seeing, for years, an organized, systematic attempt, for political reasons, to try to convince people that "the full faith and credit of the United States", the ONLY thing in our entire government which the US Constitution specifically states that the government MUST do (as opposed to "has the power to do, if it chooses"), really isn't that important, and it's just an accounting trick, and worthless pieces of paper, and all of the other flat out lies that are being shoveled.

In short, ONE of the reasons why I insist on pointing out the FACT that the trust fund exists, EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT SOMEONE SPOUTS A BS CLAIM OF WHY IT SUPPOSEDLY DOESNT, is exactly the same reason why they keep spouting BS claims of why it supposedly doesn't exist.

(Another reason is because I have a highly developed response to BS arguments, and try to point out that they are BS every time they're made. I'm funny that way. I think that the truth is important).

(I have this mythological belief that the truth has some power left. That, if lies and spin are met with truth often enough, that the truth will win, and the lies and spin will lose. Or, at least, will eventually get tired of being embarrassed, and will have the shame to hide itself).

But, back to what I think is the overall question you're asking.

There is an attempt to push a lie. To claim that all the money, that has been taken from people over their lives, money which has been borrowed, while making the most solemn promise that can be made in our entire society, that, well, we don't really need to keep that promise. After all, what's so important about a promise that's made to yourself, anyway?

And, EVERY TIME THAT LIE US PUSHED, I'm going to point out that it's a lie.

----------

Now, a question for you.

How come you're questioning the motives of the person who's RESPONDING to the lies and the spin, and not the people who are pushing them?

Why aren't you questioning the motives of the person who's spent a week pointing out that the government doesn't have the money to redeem t-bills, IF THE T-BILLS ARE OWNED BY SS (but who STILL won't admit that that statement applies to all t-bills)?

How come you aren't questioning the motives of the people (including you) who are fighting so hard to claim that the government DOESN'T owe that money to SS?

[chipwhich]

Larry you are misrepresenting what I said.

And nobody said the trust fund doesn't exist.

Stop shouting and listen and communicate.

You might rethink your position, meditate in this thread and come back when you aren't yelling.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?365102-NPR-The-Death-of-Facts-In-An-Age-of-quot-Truthiness-quot

[Larry]

deleted post.

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 10:24 AM ----------

Larry you are misrepresenting what I said.

And nobody said the trust fund doesn't exist.

Stop shouting and listen and communicate.

You might rethink your position, meditate in this thread and come back when you aren't yelling.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?365102-NPR-The-Death-of-Facts-In-An-Age-of-quot-Truthiness-quot

You know, there's a simple solution, if you think people are misrepresenting your point.

STATE YOUR POINT.

[Hubbs]

Sorry. Your "question" seems to actually be about a dozen claims, and I really didn't want to try to go hrough your oost, extract each individual sentance, and insert responses between each of them.

Instead, I'll try to make a brief, generic, response to what I think is the iverall theme of your post.

The existence of them trust fund is important for the exact same reason why thre is an attempt to deny its existence. It's politics by lying.

You are correct. The government could eliminate SS completely, tomorrow, by a simple majority vote. The existence of the trust fund does not in any way prevent that.

However, the trust fund prevents the government from doing that AND CLAIMING THAT IT DID IT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY MONEY. (Well, it prevents the claim from being TRUE. As we're seeing in this very thread, there are lots of people who are willing to claim it, when it isn't true).

We've been seeing, for years, an organized, systematic attempt, for political reasons, to try to convince people that "the full faith and credit of the United States", the ONLY thing in our entire government which the US Constitution specifically states that the government MUST do (as opposed to "has the power to do, if it chooses"), really isn't that important, and it's just an accounting trick, and worthless pieces of paper, and all of the other flat out lies that are being shoveled.

In short, ONE of the reasons why I insist on pointing out the FACT that the trust fund exists, EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT SOMEONE SPOUTS A BS CLAIM OF WHY IT SUPPOSEDLY DOESNT, is exactly the same reason why they keep spouting BS claims of why it supposedly doesn't exist.

(Another reason is because I have a highly developed response to BS arguments, and try to point out that they are BS every time they're made. I'm funny that way. I think that the truth is important).

(I have this mythological belief that the truth has some power left. That, if lies and spin are met with truth often enough, that the truth will win, and the lies and spin will lose. Or, at least, will eventually get tired of being embarrassed, and will have the shame to hide itself).

But, back to what I think is the overall question you're asking.

There is an attempt to push a lie. To claim that all the money, that has been taken from people over their lives, money which has been borrowed, while making the most solemn promise that can be made in our entire society, that, well, we don't really need to keep that promise. After all, what's so important about a promise that's made to yourself, anyway?

And, EVERY TIME THAT LIE US PUSHED, I'm going to point out that it's a lie.

----------

Now, a question for you.

I see that we've introduced capital letters into the conversation.

I also see that we've introduced an assumption of my particular motivations into the conversation. As in, you seem to be making some enormous assumptions about what motivates me to say that the "trust fund" is an accounting gimmick. You appear to be assuming that I'm saying that it's an accounting gimmick because I'm just that desperate to "lie" about said accounting gimmick in order to achieve a larger political point, when I'm not. In fact, the opposite is true.

As to your questions...

How come you're questioning the motives of the person who's RESPONDING to the lies and the spin, and not the people who are pushing them?

Because I'm pointing out that an entity "owing itself" trillions of dollars is fundamentally different than an entity owing anyone else trillions of dollars.

It's not "lies and spin," which is the entire bone of contention here. Again, you very much want to tell me that when I say that Wells Fargo's lawsuit against Wells Fargo is pointless, I'm "actually" saying that all lawsuits are pointless. That's false. It's just false. I've asked you what you're arguing for, and you haven't answered. All you've done is, once again, said that anyone who disagrees with you is a big, fat liar without saying why. You aren't saying what you're fighting for because you apparently can't, beyond calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar. That's what you want. That's your cause. You want to call people liars for pages and pages on end for the same reason that I could call someone who says "Me and Larry" versus "Larry and me" a "liar" for pages and pages on end because this person broke a ridiculously specific rule of grammar. It achieves nothing.

You want to say that I'm saying that we don't owe previous generations for what they've paid. The problem with your premise is that I'm not saying that. I'll actually argue quite vehemently that we do owe previous generations what they've paid. So please, don't tell me that you're "fighting for what earlier generations are owed" when nobody is disputing what is owed.

Why aren't you questioning the motives of the person who's spent a week pointing out that the government doesn't have the money to redeem t-bills, IF THE T-BILLS ARE OWNED BY SS (but who STILL won't admit that that statement applies to all t-bills)?

How come you aren't questioning the motives of the people (including you) who are fighting so hard to claim that the government DOESN'T owe that money to SS?

Because nobody's claiming that.

I've stood up and said, "The government owes that money either way. Going through the effort of paying accountants to change numbers on books when the government would owe that money either way is a giant waste of time."

You've stood up and said, "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! You're a liar, and I'm going to tell everyone that you're a liar, and you're saying that the government doesn't owe what liars like yourself say it doesn't owe if you say so, and you're only saying it doesn't for selfish reasons! You're a lying jackass who probably punches innocent children in the face and farts in elevators!"

And I'm saying, once again, "No, the government owes that money either way. But going through the effort of paying accountants to change numbers on books when the government would owe that money either way is, in fact, a giant waste of time."

[Larry]

I see that we've introduced capital letters into the conversation.

As I mentioned previously, I was on my iPad, which makes things like italics and underlining very difficult, but allows caps lock with relative ease.

I see that your lead-off point is a critique of the typography.

Because I'm pointing out that an entity "owing itself" trillions of dollars is fundamentally different than an entity owing anyone else trillions of dollars.

And if only the Social Security Trust Fund didn't exist as a separate entity, then this iteration of "the trust fund doesn't exist because . . . " would have some validity.

Unfortunately, reality once again intrudes on the attempt.

You want to say that I'm saying that we don't owe previous generations for what they've paid. The problem with your premise is that I'm not saying that.

Rather, you are spending pages and pages trying to argue reasons why this debt doesn't exist (see the above "it is impossible for two entities which are both managed by one entity to owe money to each other" claim), without giving any reason at all why it's so important to you to get rid of it.

The SS trust fund exists. It has existed for decades.

The reason why you want to change that is . . . ?

I'll actually argue quite vehemently that we do owe previous generations what they've paid. So please, don't tell me that you're "fighting for what earlier generations are owed" when nobody is disputing what is owed.

The reason for your fictional claim that the trust fund does not exist is . . . ?

You've made the claim. I've quoted it.

Because nobody's claiming that.

Really? "Nobody is claiming" that the government doesn't have the money sitting around to redeem the t-bills that are owned by the SS trust fund? (While being careful to specify that they're specifically talking about the t-bills owned by SS?)

Do you really want me to spend an hour or more going through this entire thread and quote every single time that claim has been made? Starting with the OP?

I've stood up and said, "The government owes that money either way. Going through the effort of paying accountants to change numbers on books when the government would owe that money either way is a giant waste of time."

Oh, now there's a new one.

"I think we should eliminate the SS trust fund, because keeping track of how much SS takes in, and how much it spends, and the interest earned on it's savings account, is just too complicated and expensive."

Silly me. And here I was assuming that there was no honest, legitimate reason for why the government should do away with a trust fund which they have been maintaining for decades. It never occurred to me that people might want to go through the effort and expense of changing things around, in order to avoid the crushing overhead and expense of once a year calculating how much interest is earned on umpty-ump dollars worth of t-bills.

Yep, that accounting nightmare of taking "current balance", multiplying it by "current interest rate", and pressing "equals", and the calculator spits out "interest earned" sure is a legitimate reason for just tossing those t-bills in the shredder.

You've stood up and said, "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! You're a liar, and I'm going to tell everyone that you're a liar, and you're saying that the government doesn't owe what liars like yourself say it doesn't owe if you say so, and you're only saying it doesn't for selfish reasons! You're a lying jackass who probably punches innocent children in the face and farts in elevators!"

I think I'll let my actual words speak for themselves.

And I'm saying, once again, "No, the government owes that money either way. But going through the effort of paying accountants to change numbers on books when the government would owe that money either way is, in fact, a giant waste of time."

I'm not 100% certain. But I'm pretty convinced that you, yourself, have spent more man-hours in this thread over the last few weeks, trying to come up with different ways of repeating the same two bogus lines about why the trust fund doesn't exist, than what the government spent on keeping track of the balance of the trust fund, in the last year.