Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
30. Yes, it's got a trust fund
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 08:33 AM
Dec 2011

But if you are 50 years old, the trust fund is not adequate to fund your retirement.

The DI trust fund is due to run out of funds by 2018; at that point, either money will be shifted from SS revenues to fund disability payments, or disability payments will be cut by somewhere around 20%.

If OASDI were a pension fund under private accounting rules, it wouldn't be considered solvent - the plan would be forced by the law governing private pensions to raise its contributions.

So I don't think your argument holds water. We need to raise revenues to save this program, and as DU discusses often enough, there's a way to do it. The fact that we aren't doing so, and that we are cutting FICA taxes as "stimulus", strongly hints that right now the political will to save SS/DI isn't there and that the real goal behind cutting FICA taxes on employees is to create a political base for not paying out benefits.

The second issue is that the assets in the SS, DI, Medicare, and federal retirement programs aren't marketable Treasuries. Instead they are special obligation Treasuries, on which the country pays interest by credit to itself. In other words, these are fake debt. We add them to our theoretical national debt, but no securities have been sold to the public.

While these programs were running surpluses that was fine, but now that they aren't, and we have to use the trust funds, that means we have to borrow and raise taxes. Well raising taxes is apparently out, so we are borrowing.

In fact, we are borrowing over a trillion dollars a year, and the borrowing rate is about static for the last two years and next year. At the beginning of January 2008, Debt Held By The Public was 5.1 trillion. It is now 10.4 trillion. We plan to borrow more than a trillion dollars next year.

If you count all the intragovernmental debt as debt, then we are already at a 100% Debt/GDP ratio. The only reason we can currently borrow money at very low rates is the financial tumult around the world, and the fact that we haven't turned those intragovernmental obligations into debt on the market. Under accounting rules, the "assets" in the intragovernmental debt bucket would not be carried at full value.

OASDI is not solvent in any sense, and those who are pretending it is are the enemies of the program. It can be made solvent; the only purpose of pretending that it is solvent is to forestall the steps needed to make it solvent.

Recommendations

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

It would have been helpful if the President hadn't idiotically made deficit hysteria.. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #1
Count on DU to have someone try to turn anything into a smear on Obama. TheWraith Dec 2011 #3
it only took one post for a lame anti-obama smear to show up. ahh.. DU... dionysus Dec 2011 #10
Who would trust the administration to protect Social Security at this point? girl gone mad Dec 2011 #20
Yes, the meme of the imaginary Social Security cuts returns. TheWraith Dec 2011 #25
What you've written is outside of my point. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #27
No one has argued that? There have been DOZENS of assertions of that just on DU. TheWraith Dec 2011 #36
... elleng Dec 2011 #5
k&r rhett o rick Dec 2011 #2
Thank you. It really irked me that every Republican presidential candidate said "we all know ... Scuba Dec 2011 #4
For being so relatively simple, a LOT of people don't understand it. TheWraith Dec 2011 #11
you are correct. Plus, where some of this meme came from was when FICA revenues fell short of wiggs Dec 2011 #6
Good fact PATRICK Dec 2011 #8
Bingo. Going into red ink is the entire point of the Trust Fund. TheWraith Dec 2011 #9
Thanks, Wraith! elleng Dec 2011 #7
Glad I could help your mood. :) nt TheWraith Dec 2011 #12
Where is the money kept for the trust fund? Snake Alchemist Dec 2011 #13
Well, THAT should stop Republican demagoguery and fear-mongering on the subject gratuitous Dec 2011 #14
There is no "shorter full benefits horizon." TheWraith Dec 2011 #15
Define "insolvent" econoclast Dec 2011 #16
Spot on analysis exboyfil Dec 2011 #18
Nice..... sendero Dec 2011 #19
Our reserve currency status is not very important in the scheme of things. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #22
I disagree.. sendero Dec 2011 #33
The US doesn't borrow. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #21
By that definition, there is no such thing as solvency for Social Security. TheWraith Dec 2011 #35
Some Investment lacrew Dec 2011 #17
Try fact-checking yourself. You just come off as knowing nothing. TheWraith Dec 2011 #26
EXACTLY!!! It pure GOP bull shit JUST like the GOP under the Bush administration put the USPS Justice wanted Dec 2011 #23
Two words: unified budget joshcryer Dec 2011 #24
At some point government income is going to have to exceed government expenditures.. Fumesucker Dec 2011 #28
Investing the social security trust fund in government securities was a stupid move Taitertots Dec 2011 #29
Your plan has to assume that income taxes on the rich could have been raised instead muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #31
Why couldn't they increase the tax rate for the rich? Taitertots Dec 2011 #32
Perhaps it should muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #34
I don't buy into the counter productive framing imposed on the situation Taitertots Dec 2011 #38
Sorry, but that's a big load of Republican talking points. TheWraith Dec 2011 #37
The money was taken from the workers to support huge tax decreases on the wealthy Taitertots Dec 2011 #39
Yes, it's got a trust fund Yo_Mama Dec 2011 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Let's try this again: No,...»Reply #30