Why is trickle-down economics still with us?

Flash said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
But again, you are ignoring the FACT that time and again these special securities have been tapped into for other purposes by the Fed, and if the general economy hits dire straits for other reasons, Soc Sec feels the pinch as well. Coupled with what you point out, and it's a hot mess. A matter of fact and history, no matter what political party was in power.
Click to expand...


I don't think the Fed used any of the securities in the SS trust fund.

This from the Social Security Administration regarding SS myths:

"Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."





https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

I can find no information about any Fed involvement in SS trust funds. If you have that information please post a link.
Click to expand...

https://www.ssa.gov/history/interfundnote.html

Where is this money? That's the big point of contention.


https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-much-money-has-congress-taken-social-security-2019-02-04
 
BidenPresident said:
Ever since Reagan and Thatcher first tried them, trickle-down policies have exploded budget deficits and widened inequality. At best, they’ve temporarily increased consumer demand (the opposite of what’s needed during high inflation that Britain and much of the world are experiencing).

Reagan’s tax cuts and deregulation at the start of the 1980s were not responsible for America’s rapid growth through the late 1980s. His exorbitant spending (mostly on national defense) fueled a temporary boom that ended in a fierce recession. The Donald Trump White House’s tax cut never trickled down.

Yet the US never restored the highest marginal tax rates before Reagan, and deregulation – especially of financial markets – is a continuing legacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/09/why-is-trickle-down-economics-still-with-us
Click to expand...

Why are you still with us, you promised faithfully that you'd but you lied about that as well.
 
BidenPresident said:
Ever since Reagan and Thatcher first tried them, trickle-down policies have exploded budget deficits and widened inequality. At best, they’ve temporarily increased consumer demand (the opposite of what’s needed during high inflation that Britain and much of the world are experiencing).

Reagan’s tax cuts and deregulation at the start of the 1980s were not responsible for America’s rapid growth through the late 1980s. His exorbitant spending (mostly on national defense) fueled a temporary boom that ended in a fierce recession. The Donald Trump White House’s tax cut never trickled down.

Yet the US never restored the highest marginal tax rates before Reagan, and deregulation – especially of financial markets – is a continuing legacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/09/why-is-trickle-down-economics-still-with-us
Click to expand...

Why are you still with us, you promised faithfully that you'd leave but you lied about that as well.
 
Taichiliberal said:
https://www.ssa.gov/history/interfundnote.html

Where is this money? That's the big point of contention.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-much-money-has-congress-taken-social-security-2019-02-04
Click to expand...

Taichiliberal,

I think the Nasdaq article answers all your questions:

"[FONT=source_sans_proregular]But is this correct? Has Congress pilfered $2.9 trillion (or more) from Social Security and put the program between a rock and a hard place? Well... no."

[/FONT]"[FONT=source_sans_proregular]The fact is that Congress,despite borrowing $2.9 trillionfromSocial Security[/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular], [/FONT]hasn't pilfered or misappropriated a red cent[FONT=source_sans_proregular] from the program."

[/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]"What's more, Social Security is already generating interest income from the federal government on its borrowing. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the $2.9 trillion in special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness were yielding an average of 2.85%. Since these bonds range in maturity from 1 to 15 years, there's plenty of opportunity to take advantage of rising yields and adjust the program's bond investments as needed.[/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]
Ultimately, Congress' borrowing allowed Social Security to collect $85.1 billion in interest income for 2017, and it's expected to provide $804 billion in aggregate interest income between 2018 and 2027. In other words, when opponents of this borrowing complain about the program not receiving interest, they're simply not doing their homework.[/FONT]
[FONT=source_sans_proregular]Lastly, regardless of whether Social Security owns government-issued bonds or cash, it [/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]doesn't change the asset reserves held by the program. It's $2.9 trillion either way. To suggest [/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]that repaying these bonds would put the program on more solid footing is simply not correct, as it'd have no impact on the program's total assets, and it would actually hurt its revenue-generating prospects.[/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]Long story short, Congress is in the clear on this one.

This is a long-standing myth that SS is in trouble because Congress spent it on (defense according to liberals) or (social welfare according to conservatives). So, SS will have a revenue shortfall when the $2.9 trillion runs out, but that is not because somebody spent that money.

Neither of those articles you posted say anything bout the Fed. [/FONT]
 
Flash said:
Taichiliberal,

I think the Nasdaq article answers all your questions:

"[FONT=source_sans_proregular]But is this correct? Has Congress pilfered $2.9 trillion (or more) from Social Security and put the program between a rock and a hard place? Well... no."

[/FONT]"[FONT=source_sans_proregular]The fact is that Congress,despite borrowing $2.9 trillionfromSocial Security[/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular], [/FONT]hasn't pilfered or misappropriated a red cent[FONT=source_sans_proregular] from the program."

[/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]"What's more, Social Security is already generating interest income from the federal government on its borrowing. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the $2.9 trillion in special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness were yielding an average of 2.85%. Since these bonds range in maturity from 1 to 15 years, there's plenty of opportunity to take advantage of rising yields and adjust the program's bond investments as needed.[/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]
Ultimately, Congress' borrowing allowed Social Security to collect $85.1 billion in interest income for 2017, and it's expected to provide $804 billion in aggregate interest income between 2018 and 2027. In other words, when opponents of this borrowing complain about the program not receiving interest, they're simply not doing their homework.[/FONT]
[FONT=source_sans_proregular]Lastly, regardless of whether Social Security owns government-issued bonds or cash, it [/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]doesn't change the asset reserves held by the program. It's $2.9 trillion either way. To suggest [/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]that repaying these bonds would put the program on more solid footing is simply not correct, as it'd have no impact on the program's total assets, and it would actually hurt its revenue-generating prospects.[/FONT][FONT=source_sans_proregular]Long story short, Congress is in the clear on this one.

This is a long-standing myth that SS is in trouble because Congress spent it on (defense according to liberals) or (social welfare according to conservatives). So, SS will have a revenue shortfall when the $2.9 trillion runs out, but that is not because somebody spent that money.

Neither of those articles you posted say anything bout the Fed. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

Actually, it's kind of apropos of the article I linked. A moot point that essentially emphasizes the convoluted, economic bureaucratic economic "logic" involved in shuffling money around and then stating "not really" (yes, the Fed is involved unless you're claiming it's all independent non-gov't entities in total control of Soc Sec). As other links we've looked at, any shake up in the economy that shakes the coffers affects the Soc Sec because it is involved in money shuffle. As usual, the establishment blames the people and not their management for a shortfall.

You and I are NOT going to 100% agree on this in detail. I'll leave it at that.
 
Flash said:
I don't think the Fed used any of the securities in the SS trust fund.

This from the Social Security Administration regarding SS myths:

"Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

I can find no information about any Fed involvement in SS trust funds. If you have that information please post a link.
Click to expand...

There is no trust fund.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top