The Social Security Thread

eyer

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Posts
21,263
What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?

"Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

"And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

"Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

"Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

"President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

"Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?

"Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

"Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

"The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

"Thus, the answer to my initial question is that the president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.

"And here’s the real irony: Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

"Well, we have the status quo and seniors may not get their checks. Had we shifted to a system of pre-funded, personal Social Security retirement accounts years ago, this wouldn’t even be an issue—because retirees would have their own money in their own accounts.

"Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

"If the budget crisis has done nothing else, it has exposed the decades-long lie about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. The trust fund may be backed by the “full faith and credit of the federal government,” as defenders constantly remind us, but if it had real assets the president wouldn’t be talking about seniors missing their checks."

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. http://twitter.com/MerrillMatthews

http://blogs.forbes.com/merrillmatt...-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/
 
This is quite representative of the terminally ignorant thinking about social security that one finds from time to time (and typically in the republican media), although I think most americans are much better informed than eyer. (The concept of getting 'information' from a republican party parrot like Charles Krauthammer truly makes the head spin.)

Republican media present the absurd idea that 'social security is broke', 'the feds have borrowed all the social security money.' They (republicans and conservatives) do this mostly because they hate the concept of social security - they fought tooth and nail to keep it from being created, voted against it, and in recent years have taken a few serious whacks at destroying it. (And were SS never enacted the US would now rank among the third world countries in life expectancy and poverty among the few elderly who manage to stay alive.)

The federal government did not go out and commandeer social security money, rather social security wisely invested its money in the safest investment in the world: US Treasury obligations (or at least they were widely regarded as the safest until the republicans decided recently to start playing games with them).

What else is social security going to do with accumulated payroll taxes? They invested them in a safe investment that will pay a return. Does anyone (other than eyer) really believe that social security is going to keep its trillions in surpluses for future obligations sitting around the social security office in the form of bundled hundred dollar bills stuffed into cardboard boxes?
 
This is quite representative of the terminally ignorant thinking about social security that one finds from time to time (and typically in the republican media), although I think most americans are much better informed than eyer. (The concept of getting 'information' from a republican party parrot like Charles Krauthammer truly makes the head spin.)

Republican media present the absurd idea that 'social security is broke', 'the feds have borrowed all the social security money.' They (republicans and conservatives) do this mostly because they hate the concept of social security - they fought tooth and nail to keep it from being created, voted against it, and in recent years have taken a few serious whacks at destroying it. (And were SS never enacted the US would now rank among the third world countries in life expectancy and poverty among the few elderly who manage to stay alive.)

The federal government did not go out and commandeer social security money, rather social security wisely invested its money in the safest investment in the world: US Treasury obligations (or at least they were widely regarded as the safest until the republicans decided recently to start playing games with them).

What else is social security going to do with accumulated payroll taxes? They invested them in a safe investment that will pay a return. Does anyone (other than eyer) really believe that social security is going to keep its trillions in surpluses for future obligations sitting around the social security office in the form of bundled hundred dollar bills stuffed into cardboard boxes?

Well, let's see...the US Treasury currently has an obligation to pay on those funds when they come due. The US Treasury is currently 2+ trillion dollars in debt. Just when will the US Treasury have the money to pay me? 2050? 2060? I'll be dead by then, barring any fantastic discovery of a longevity drug.

There is no trust fund. The democrats took the money that was earmarked for investment and that which will be there in future and spent it on the likes of you. They bought your vote.

The government fucked up. The working stiff of today will never see a cent of the money they contribute. And if the government had their way, your 401k, IRA's and CD's would be in their pockets too, to spend as they see fit. 'cause as far as you are concerned you don't know shit about how to spend your money.
 
The federal government did not go out and commandeer social security money, rather social security wisely invested its money in the safest investment in the world: US Treasury obligations (or at least they were widely regarded as the safest until the republicans decided recently to start playing games with them).

It figures you chose a girly alt...

...'cause it's cute how you dressed-up that pig.
 
This is quite representative of the terminally ignorant thinking about social security that one finds from time to time (and typically in the republican media), although I think most americans are much better informed than eyer. (The concept of getting 'information' from a republican party parrot like Charles Krauthammer truly makes the head spin.)

Republican media present the absurd idea that 'social security is broke', 'the feds have borrowed all the social security money.' They (republicans and conservatives) do this mostly because they hate the concept of social security - they fought tooth and nail to keep it from being created, voted against it, and in recent years have taken a few serious whacks at destroying it. (And were SS never enacted the US would now rank among the third world countries in life expectancy and poverty among the few elderly who manage to stay alive.)

The federal government did not go out and commandeer social security money, rather social security wisely invested its money in the safest investment in the world: US Treasury obligations (or at least they were widely regarded as the safest until the republicans decided recently to start playing games with them).

What else is social security going to do with accumulated payroll taxes? They invested them in a safe investment that will pay a return. Does anyone (other than eyer) really believe that social security is going to keep its trillions in surpluses for future obligations sitting around the social security office in the form of bundled hundred dollar bills stuffed into cardboard boxes?

It wasn't Krauthammer or any radical rw propagandist who said he could not guarantee those checks going out, so we must conclude that President Obama is a liar since that cash seems to be at hand...

Bernake's a Republican?

Raise your hand if you remember three months before it went Belly-Up, Barney Frank passionately lisping about how sound it was and how Republicans were trying to use scare tactics to get at the poor while Maxine Waters was chanting about Republican racism...
 
Back
Top