General Discussion

lacrew

(283 posts)

37. I only wish these 'investments' were called debt on the opposite side of the ledger

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 03:41 PM

Apr 2012

For decades, since politicians 'saved social security', the surplus has been put into the general fund.

The OP is correct in stating that these are assets on the SS side...but the debt owed to SS is rarely counted in our national debt. The line of reasoning is 'its not a debt owed by the public'.....well ok. If the public doesn't owe this debt, who does? Apparently nobody...and on the debt side, these are not called loans - they are 'intragovernmental transfers'.

All of this begs the question - if the SS trust fund holds $2.5 in paper, who pays this off? We the people.

So isn't it really a game of semantics?

At the end of the day, SS does not have enough cash for the long term...and will be reliant on cashing in on some of its paper. That money comes from us...if SS isn't broke, well then we the people are. Which is practically the same thing. To say otherwise presumes that the cash will come from some source outside of the US.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

164 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Once again: The Social Security Trust Fund is neither a fiction nor bankrupt. That is a myth. [View all] TheWraith Apr 2012 OP

Great. And if Obama decided he wanted to redeem all those investments tomorrow, how would he? joeglow3 Apr 2012 #1

Your comment makes no sense. TheWraith Apr 2012 #3

You know the point I am making and are intentionally ignoring it. joeglow3 Apr 2012 #46

Apple, meet orange. Scuba Apr 2012 #79

Cop out joeglow3 Apr 2012 #82

No, I'm saying that your point is not a point at all. It's nonsense. TheWraith Apr 2012 #152

The Trustees don't control them Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #128

He doen't appear to be interested in his thread anymore. ronnie624 Apr 2012 #132

I only wish these 'investments' were called debt on the opposite side of the ledger lacrew Apr 2012 #37

"who pays this off? We the people." Not exactly. The money was borrowed from workers, HiPointDem Apr 2012 #39

So this will come from our non-existent income tax surplus? joeglow3 Apr 2012 #47

Interesting how you ignore what I said and change your argument. First it was that "we the people" HiPointDem Apr 2012 #50

I agree liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #64

I just responded to liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #52

The SS trust fund is not in "US treasury bonds". n/t PoliticAverse Apr 2012 #2

Correct - if "is not" means "is". closeupready Apr 2012 #4

Um, yeah, it is. It's required to be by law. TheWraith Apr 2012 #5

Nope. The Social Security trust fund is not in "US Treasury Bonds"... PoliticAverse Apr 2012 #10

They're bonds... issued by the US treasury. TheWraith Apr 2012 #11

The 'legal protecton' issue is a red-herring. Since the securities are an internel-debt obligation PoliticAverse Apr 2012 #13

Congress could of course abolish Social Security. TheWraith Apr 2012 #19

Yep, the real problem is they don't want to pay the money back. bemildred Apr 2012 #6

Are you saying the government will have no financial difficulty redeeming the SS T Bonds? Fumesucker Apr 2012 #7

Assuming that we don't fuck up the debt limit, and/or crash the economy. TheWraith Apr 2012 #15

We can just print it. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #26

Bingo... sendero Apr 2012 #72

At what point do you foresee the budget being in decent shape? n/t Fumesucker Apr 2012 #51

Exactly, the SS trust fund is secure, now on to the next issue... hughee99 Apr 2012 #8

They still are pushing that meme on the MSM. I just saw one yesterday with the headline Cleita Apr 2012 #9

There's two problems with that headline. TheWraith Apr 2012 #12

Also, according to Bernie Sanders SS will still be able to pay 80% of benefits even Cleita Apr 2012 #14

Something like that. I believe the usual estimated number is 75%. TheWraith Apr 2012 #17

Let's just cut benefits by 25% NOW, then, so that seniors in 2033 can get what's been promised! Romulox Apr 2012 #89

By all means, continue acting silly and creating strawmen. nt TheWraith Apr 2012 #156

You forgot the third problem--the trust fund is SUPPOSED TO disappear eridani Apr 2012 #65

I heard that too and was surprised that it was put out there as fact. The Wielding Truth Apr 2012 #16

*Every penny* of the so-called "Trust Fund" has been spent. It's a fact that can't be ignored. Romulox Apr 2012 #18

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. TheWraith Apr 2012 #20

And your logic would land me, a CPA, in prison if I tried to pass that off as "accounting." joeglow3 Apr 2012 #48

Hogwash. Corporations lend between divisions and assets all the time, showing debt on one side HiPointDem Apr 2012 #69

Show me a company that pulls money out of a trust fund for retirees and spends the money. joeglow3 Apr 2012 #70

uh, all corporate retirement funds? HiPointDem Apr 2012 #71

You did not answer joeglow3 Apr 2012 #84

Plenty of pension funds are bondholders for their own company Recursion Apr 2012 #111

BS. The money "borrowed" is in T-Bills. Cleita Apr 2012 #21

That's factually incorrect. They are "special issues", not T-bills. They are not tradeable. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #41

They are very safe. The US government hasn't never, ever not paid up. Also, as another Cleita Apr 2012 #45

OK, but that doesn't contradict a thing I said. I didn't call for SS to be privatized, either. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #49

Not really. Kaleva Apr 2012 #22

No, this is also incorrect. Every dollar spent from the Trust Fund offset other potential borrowing Romulox Apr 2012 #42

Never said it reduces the national debt. Kaleva Apr 2012 #53

Intragovernmental borrowing is ultimately a wash, except for interest payments (which are below HiPointDem Apr 2012 #68

Agreed, but let's not lose sight of the underlying fact: the money has been SPENT. In Iraq. Romulox Apr 2012 #87

All of which are "investments" Recursion Apr 2012 #107

LOL at wars in Iraq, Afghanistan as "investments". Whats the ROI? Romulox Apr 2012 #129

Well, for instance, I was a Navy contractor for some of that time Recursion Apr 2012 #133

You have a real hard time with private vs. public debt/benefit. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #161

*Every penny* of your so-called "bank accounts" has been spent. MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #28

This isn't disagreeing with me...nt Romulox Apr 2012 #40

Correct. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #55

Bank of America's obligations (SHOULD'NT) be on the shoulders on unborn taxpayers. Romulox Apr 2012 #88

But they absolutely are Recursion Apr 2012 #94

No. Private businesses are typically capitalized by investors, not taxpayers. Banks are special, Romulox Apr 2012 #95

I didn't mean literal taxpayers, I meant depositors Recursion Apr 2012 #98

Well, I did *literally mean* taxpayers, since that's what this discussion is about. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #102

We have a sovereign currency. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #56

LOL. Then just give each of us a zillion-trillion-gazillion dollars of this "sovereign currency" Romulox Apr 2012 #85

Of course there would be other complications to drastically increasing the money supply. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #159

The same is true of 401(k) plans Recursion Apr 2012 #76

401ks are really a horrible example of long term fiscal dependability. Probably the worst you Romulox Apr 2012 #86

Any invested asset has been "spent". That's the point of investing it (nt) Recursion Apr 2012 #92

401ks are NOT guaranteed by future tax payers. They have little (or nothing) in common with SS. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #97

SS payments aren't guaranteed by future tax payers, either Recursion Apr 2012 #99

Snark removed: The future stream of payments to SS beneficiaries will be from future taxpayers. Romulox Apr 2012 #100

Well, no, presumably we'll borrow to retire the intragovernmental holdings Recursion Apr 2012 #101

An economic model based on the miracle of fish and loaves, then... Romulox Apr 2012 #103

The same people we borrow from now: it's called "the bond market" Recursion Apr 2012 #104

Um, this thread is about the so-called "Social Security Trust Fund". That's created from payroll Romulox Apr 2012 #105

*facepalm* Recursion Apr 2012 #108

Facepalm backatcha. SS has a structural deficit such that it cannot pay out scheduled benefits. Romulox Apr 2012 #110

How do you see any new debt being added? Recursion Apr 2012 #113

That's right, your arithmetic is too simplistic. You're talking about new borrowing, and Romulox Apr 2012 #120

They talk as if we're not already in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars ronnie624 Apr 2012 #124

In the same sense that every penny of the mortgage money my bank loaned me was spent. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #109

Except banks are private businesses who don't (normally) fund themselves via taxes. Romulox Apr 2012 #112

Different? Undoubtedly. Non sequitur? Absolutely. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #116

LOL at this: "Regardless of how the borrower will come up with the cash..." That's the rub, innit? Romulox Apr 2012 #131

You're essentially saying it's impossible to save money Recursion Apr 2012 #134

Spending money and saving money aren't the same thing. It's a silly argument. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #135

if you save in a bank or investment fund you're lending your money to someone to spend. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #136

"The money"? ALL money is debt. It's irrelevant what the government spent the loan proceeds on. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #145

I remember being surprised when I took a banking class... Recursion Apr 2012 #146

K&R for the truth /nt Dragonfli Apr 2012 #23

Hi, Wraith! bvar22 Apr 2012 #24

An argument to cut SS usually comes in two parts. pa28 Apr 2012 #25

Best coming to a logical conclusion argument that I have seen. Cleita Apr 2012 #31

Relax, this money can just be printed when it is needed to be paid out. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #27

Wow, got those talking points in twice in one thread Kingofalldems Apr 2012 #32

It's called reality. Ben will just fire up the presses. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #33

So your believe in a reality that Ben will be firing up the presses 21 years from now? n/t Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #35

LOL, hopefully not. Whoever is at the wheel at that point. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #36

I imagine many people subscribe to bumper stickers as their reality. LanternWaste Apr 2012 #91

So where do you think the money will come from? Be specific. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #93

OK, so you're saying Social Security is fine because we can always roll the printing presses Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #60

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #29

Rec. Right on MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #30

can the trustee's sell the "US bonds" on the open market? alc Apr 2012 #34

They are included in government debt statistics. They are considered 'Intragovernmental Holdings' PoliticAverse Apr 2012 #38

Regardless of IOUs or T-bills... EdinGA Apr 2012 #43

People don't want to lift the income cap, because they don't want benefits means-tested. Romulox Apr 2012 #44

Bullshit. There is already "means testing" in the form of capped payouts eridani Apr 2012 #67

It's not my argument, so don't rail against me. Google previous DU discussions on the subject. Romulox Apr 2012 #90

Sorry--hard to keep the subthreads separate eridani Apr 2012 #153

Benefits are progressive. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #118

I agree with lifting the cap and means testing. Many do not. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #130

I agree with lifting the cap. I do not agree with means testing. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #144

+10000 n/t eridani Apr 2012 #154

If semantics get you there, I'm fine with that. Your suggestion would be right in line Romulox Apr 2012 #158

The Awful Truth About the Social Security Trust Fund allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #54

"the government does not have the money to repay the money it has "borrowed" or "stolen."" girl gone mad Apr 2012 #57

Technically liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #66

Are you seriously proposing the Federal government open a deposit account somewhere? Recursion Apr 2012 #106

I wrote myself an IOU for $2 million on a piece of paper, which I placed in a safe-deposit box. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #58

Question: girl gone mad Apr 2012 #62

I understand your point. We can roll the printing presses, so SS will always be fine. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #63

In my view, we shouldn't bother. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #73

One goes with the other it seems The2ndWheel Apr 2012 #81

I think we can meet our energy demands with proper investment. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #160

And since you have the ability to print your own money and issue your own debt... lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #121

Again, that's the "roll the printing presses" argument. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #123

Why? Because to do so devalues the existing money. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #143

Debt is debt, ronnie624 Apr 2012 #127

No it doesn't. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #142

We could just print the money tomorrow to pay off all US debt. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #150

Except for the fact that future lenders would take that into account, yes. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #155

Thanks for the interesting article ronnie624 Apr 2012 #163

And as soon as you become a sovereign nation, it will work for you, too. n/t Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #147

Because a sovereign nation can simply print the money it needs to pay benefits. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #149

look at our newspaper this morning. spanone Apr 2012 #59

Thank you. It used to annoy the living shit out of me when I was down coalition_unwilling Apr 2012 #61

The Looting of Social Security allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #74

Thank you very much. ronnie624 Apr 2012 #77

Well said. It also means... Recursion Apr 2012 #75

Hello! This, exactly. n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #122

If most of the current and future taxpayer revenue ronnie624 Apr 2012 #78

It's not a fiction, but there are no assets which the government can use to pay benefits. Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #80

The government can and will use all that money being hoarded by the wealthy right now to pay. bemildred Apr 2012 #83

Government only has one asset: it's full faith and credit. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #114

I dunno. Ours has some pretty cool buildings. And the Interstate Highway system Recursion Apr 2012 #115

Who's going to repo it? n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #119

The trillions burned up in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been "invested" in interest bearing accounts Romulox Apr 2012 #96

Yep. ronnie624 Apr 2012 #117

The 1983 Social Security "Fix" allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #125

reagan didn't call the g-span commission to "raise money," he called it because the SS TF was HiPointDem Apr 2012 #137

I'm 45 years old. I don't expect to see a dime. Throd Apr 2012 #126

The Looting of Social Security: Pre-taxing the Baby Boomers allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #138

The trust fund has still never had a year in deficit. I'm so tired of that lie Recursion Apr 2012 #139

Either the government will have to take money from the general budget..." HiPointDem Apr 2012 #140

Err... the whole point of this was that it's easier to borrow Recursion Apr 2012 #148

The money has been squandered on things like the Internet and Pell Grants Recursion Apr 2012 #141

The So-called Trust Fund �Bonds� allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #151

The first year that benefits are not paid is the first year that "full faith and credit" dies. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #157

The Looting of Social Security: The Code of Silence allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #162

This message was self-deleted by its author Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #164