Social security is not socialism but it needs to be privatized

The quote was correct as far as it went. You expounded on it further, but your exposition was not reassuring. Essentially, you stated there is an IOU for the SS funds the government filched. We sort of all knew that anyway. A convoluted explication really does not make it any better.

 

IOUs?

As much as any government bond is an IOU...in fact ALL bonds are IOUs. Your MORTGAGE is an IOU

You act like that's some unheard of thing...it's not

 

The population is not increasing at the rate it used to, people aren't having as many babies and people are living longer.

You're welcome to disagree with us, but saying something is "ideological nonsense" isn't an argument. That's just a claim.

 

It's a very heard of IOU. Every bond is indeed an IOU. Your mortgage is an IOU. Simply because they're really common and we call them bonds doesn't mean it's not an IOU.

Now if you have a mortgage, presumably you have some equity in your house and the difference is what you owe.

To make it simpler, let's say a loan is an IOU and the Social Security Trust fund has given out a bunch of loans to other people. Obviously, that's not as good as cold, hard cash because there's the chance that the debtors could default. It's also true that if someone says "Social Security costs the taxpayer x" then that's indeed true because the taxpayer is the debtor through the USFG.

 

Unless, during this discussion, you have run out to the SCOTUS Store and picked up a new robe your opinion of the constitutionality of the FED or FDIC is really not worth the booger I scraped off my keyboard. Standing law recognizes McCulloch as the authority for the existence of the FED. The Federal Reserve Act Determined the structure and authority of the FED. 104 years later there is not a single successful challenge to the FED.

The FDIC is a member organization. No bank is forced to join. If a bank chooses to join the bank agrees to abide by the rules of the organization. Yeah, the FDIC can borrow money. The FDIC is also required to pay that money back, with interest. The FDIC has existed for more than 80 years and in that 80 years not a single successful challenge to its constitutionality.

So, to summarize. Your opinion is wrong. Your opinion is irrelevant because until some court holds the FED or FDIC unconstitutional none of what you are saying is worth discussion and finally, your opinion is little more than the whining from the Ron Paul Fan Club.

 

So to summarize...the Trust Fund is as sound as any government bond or in fact ANY bond and your mortgage to boot.

Thanks for playing

 

You really don't know this yet? This thread is a good resource. I have explained this about 4 times.

Current funds earmarked for SS from payroll taxes go to the SSA. From that current revenue the SSA pays for current obligations to retirees. If there is an excess of current revenue, the excess goes to the Trust Fund where it purchases special Treasury securities bearing interest. Those Treasury securities remain in the Trust Fund until they are needed. But if there is a shortfall of current revenue to meet current obligations, sufficient Treasuries in the Trust Fund are redeemed to generate the needed revenue to pay all current obligations.

 

NO, LESH, when the Treasuries are redeemed, it DOES NOT come out of the general fund to repay that debt! I explained this to you previously.

 

I understand your desire to separate SS from the general fund but I think your wrong. I don't think it matters but when the Trust Fund Securities are redeemed that money has to come from somewhere. The payroll deductions are used for other than Trust Fund obligations of course.(direct payments to beneficiaries)

If the money doesn't come from the general fund (into which it went when the Treasuries were bought)...where does it come from?

Believe me, I really want to understand this if I have it wrong.


I got this from wiki for what it's worth

The trust funds run surpluses in that the amount paid in by current workers is more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries. These surpluses are given to the U.S. Treasury (and thus become part of the general federal budget) in exchange for special U.S. government securities, which are deposited into the trust funds. If the trust funds begin running deficits, meaning more in benefits are paid out than contributions paid in, the Social Security Administration is empowered to redeem the securities and use those funds to cover the deficit.

 

I'm definitely ideologically opposed to Social Security Everything following should be judged by that

 

Sounds like a great plan doesn't it? I should have taken the example one step further. Since there was no money in the general fund to repay the IOU from the general to the vacation fund, we'd just put the vaca on the U.S.A. credit card. What's the harm? It's interest only. We'll just keep doing this year after year. How? I'll automatically mandate that my credit limit cap is raised year after year. Why worry? What do I care if eventually my interest bill annually becomes half of my earnings.

 

I guess you failed to read what I wrote about Chile when they tried this or forgot what happened in 2008.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude...that money was borrowed by previous administrations (all the way back to Reagan) as intended and it is OWED to the Trust Fund. Republicans have been trying to reneg on that deal for 35 years

 

Yet a mortgage is secured with something tangible, like the value of the property being borrowed against. When proper lending guidelines are in place, even in a fire sale the lender should be able to get most of it's money back. What is actually backing the reserve in SSI? A money printing machine?

 

What backs ANY government Bond? The full faith and credit of he United States...barring Republicans trying to reneg on that obligation

 

You're not making any sense. IOU? Filched? Riddles.

 

You miss the mark again. What part of SSI not being a stand alone fund do you not get? The money is NOT kept in a fiduciary trust account, commingled with the all the other government expenditures and secured on a prayer that the US Treasury can meet it's obligations to repay SSI if the incoming receipts have a shortfall against expenditures. I understand the accounting process, however it's not sound practice and puts SSI retirement funds at risk. With the U.S. 20 trillion dollars in debt, understand this: The USA has a negative net worth of 20 trillion dollars. I wonder what valuation Wall Street would place on equities issued by the US if they were publicly trades?
We are a penny stock company in danger of being delisted and headed to the pink sheets.

 

He's calling Reagan's Social Security Deal from 1983 "filching".

 

Exactly my point. I wouldn't exactly rate the USA's status as AAA being as upside down as we are with regard to debt. Thanks both Bush and particularly Oblama.

 

Dude you need to breath when you try to get a point across. It kinda comes off crazy when you don't. There is absolutely a Trust account made up of Treasury Bills. All you're saying is that you don't think we should have to pay off on that obligation

 

Yet the rest of the world continues to invest in US $$$.

 

Lets' put this nonsense to bed right now.

An "I Owe yoU (is a) Non-negotiable debt instrument addressed to a creditor, dated, and signed by the borrower. It serves as an informal acknowledgment of a debt of a specified sum but (depending on the terminology used) may or may not serve as an evidence of debt in a court."

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/IOU.html

A SSTF Treasury security is not addressed to a creditor, or signed by the "borrower. So it is not an "IOU".

STOP. LYING.

 

It's an IOU in the same way as a Savings Bond. Is that an IOU? Kinda but not technically. It's certainly not the "worthless IOU" that Republicans try to claim it is

 

What if your earnings double or triple?

 

Money is an IOU too, but you can at least hold it in your hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry you don't "get" basics.

 

You can only hold YOUR money in your hand. You can't hold your neighbor's (unless he has more faith in you than I have) and you can't hold the Trust Fund Securities because THEY are not yours. But they're every bit as real.

What I'm getting out of this is that Republicans are claiming that when Reagan made the deal that funded the Trust Fund like this...he was a dishonest robber?