Koch to Hayek: Use Social Security!

Poor Blabo. It's pathetic when you try to copy me.

You can't refute the facts, can you?

If we do absolutely nothing to change the Social Security program, the interest earned by the fund's bonds will pay out benefits until at least 2024.




http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
Poor Blabo. It's pathetic when you try to copy me.

You can't refute the facts, can you?

If we do absolutely nothing to change the Social Security program, the interest earned by the fund's bonds will pay out benefits until at least 2024.




http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
Click to expand...


Yes....thats right......except for the fact that its the US government paying the interest and principle to the SS Trust Fund.....

Interest and principle they have to borrow from third parties like China and Russia, growing the federal debt...........you just don't get it, do you PAW ?
 
bravo said:
Yes....thats right......except for the fact that its the US government paying the interest and principle to the SS Trust Fund.....
Interest and principle they have to borrow from third parties like China and Russia, growing the federal debt...........you just don't get it, do you PAW ?
Click to expand...

What a financial genius Blabo is.

He thinks "principle" is the the original amount of a debt or investment on which interest is calculated, and wants to be taken seriously in a discussion of bonds.

Social Security has taken in so much money (in part because President Reagan effectively doubled Social Security taxes, at the urging of Alan Greenspan) that the program has been lending money to the U.S. government for decades.

The federal government now owes the program money (trillions).

What this means is that, unless you conveniently ignore how successive administrations have been drawing on the surpluses, Social Security has nothing to do with the budget deficit.

Nothing.

Zilch.

Nada.


http://markmartinezshow.blogspot.com/2011/08/gops-social-security-crisis-myth.html


Poor Blabo.
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
Are you claiming to have an imminent date which constitutes a 'crisis'?

Yes, or no?
Click to expand...

Ironically, no... not predicting a date... because you know what will happen as well as I... let's say Social Security was set to run out of money in the next couple weeks... what would Congress do? Would they sit on their hands and pretend the problem didn't exist as they have been doing? Nope... they would convene an emergency session, and find some way to keep Social Security functioning... to keep the checks going out... to keep the people content. We all know this, Republican and Democrat alike, Social Security will be there no matter what, they aren't about to cut millions of people off cold turkey.... that just ain't happening in the real world. Now, we won't have the money to fund it, and we'll have to borrow it at God knows what kind of interest rates, but our Congress will find some way to keep Social Security going long after the money completely runs out, because the can't afford the political ramifications to NOT do that.

None of this changes the fact that Social Security is broke, and the money I have invested will never be realized. It also doesn't change the fact, that at some point in time, we are going to have to reform the system, it can't handle the influx of ALL the Baby Boomer generation... that's just a reality. Of course... you're not big on reality, are you?
 
Political leaders continue a long tradition of using words to describe Social Security that give you an impression that is different from reality.

Normally, when you hear the words “trust fund,” you think of an arrangement where money and investments have been set aside that are dedicated to a specific purpose, such as providing retirement benefits.

And typically, the money and investments in a trust fund are separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund. The trust funds supporting your 401k and pension benefits operate this way.

But the Social Security “trust fund” is invested in special government bonds issued by the federal government.

Principal and interest on these bonds must be repaid by future generations, according to law.

The bonds in the Social Security trust fund are counted both as an asset of the trust fund and as a liability, since they are part of the total federal debt.

Basically, one hand of the government owes the other hand, and the investments in the “trust fund” are not separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund.

Social Security is still pay-as-you-go, with the difference being that future generations will pay for both the benefits outlay and the repayment of principal and interest on the special government bonds in the trust fund.

Some people are outraged by the operation of the Social Security trust fund, using inflammatory language to describe our politicians as having "raided the trust fund". I don’t happen to be outraged.

I realize and accept that the government has a variety of revenue sources, including FICA taxes, and a variety of expenditures, including Social Security benefits.

There is — and never has been — any real link between our Social Security benefits and the FICA taxes that we pay. What the Social Security trust fund does represent is a legal obligation for our government to repay the principal and interest on the special bonds in the trust fund.

I have faith that these bonds will be honored — provided that future generations can afford to repay the bonds.


The debate on the Social Security trust fund is really a distraction from the real debate...


http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retireme...-security-trust-fund-myth/2944/#ixzz1Zfd6OqLh
 
Here's the bottom line, pinhead. The Social Security system established back in the days of FDR, was designed to work with a highly populated workforce and relatively small number of elderly retirees. What it never anticipated, was an influx of 70 million baby boomers, within a span of 10 years, which tilts dramatically, the number in the workforce contributing to Social Security, and the number on Social Security receiving benefits. Granted, over the years, enough money was paid in to the system to take care of this influx, but it was appropriated by Congress and spent, and replaced with IOUs.... it's not there anymore. So now we face these 70 million people retiring, and the funds to send their checks out, is not there. We'll have to borrow it to pay them, but this still doesn't fix the problem or the system.

People like you, use Social Security to stir up your class warfare rhetoric, so you MUST present propaganda which says there is no problem, let's just move on... but there IS a problem, and if we don't do something about it now, the problem will be worse down the road. The longer we prolong finding a solution, the worse this problem gets. But for now, you are content to keep you head in the sand, and continue with your class warfare rhetoric.... it's more important to you to play a little political game right now, than to do what's in the best interest of America.
 
How am I stirring up class warfare?

Conservatives are the ones screaming 'crisis', aren't they?

Social Security is solvent for years to come as it is.

If you're still pissing your pink panties about it anyway, tell your Congresspeople and Senators you want the the income cap lifted.
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
Political leaders continue a long tradition of using words to describe Social Security that give you an impression that is different from reality.
Your so stupid, its a waste to reply, but I'm bored tonight...

Normally, when you hear the words “trust fund,” you think of an arrangement where money and investments have been set aside that are dedicated to a specific purpose, such as providing retirement benefits.
The excess taxes WERE set aside in a cash fund, dedicated to providing retirement benefits.

And typically, the money and investments in a trust fund are separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund. The trust funds supporting your 401k and pension benefits operate this way.
Irrelevant word salad

But the Social Security “trust fund” is invested in special government bonds issued by the federal government.

The SS trust fund was TAKEN by the gov. and spent and in its place the trust was given bonds paying interest....

Principal and interest on these bonds must be repaid by future generations, according to law.

Exactly what I told you in Post 82

The bonds in the Social Security trust fund are counted both as an asset of the trust fund and as a liability, since they are part of the total federal debt.

Exactly what I told you in Post 82

Basically, one hand of the government owes the other hand, and the investments in the “trust fund” are not separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund.

What investments...WTF are you talking about....the trust now consists of federal bonds, useless until bought back by the federal gov.....

Social Security is still pay-as-you-go, with the difference being that future generations will pay for both the benefits outlay and the repayment of principal and interest on the special government bonds in the trust fund.

Future generations will not pay both unless taxes are raised so the gov. has the cash to make good on the bonds...as of today, they don't have the cash and must borrow it
Exactly what I told you in Post 82

Some people are outraged by the operation of the Social Security trust fund, using inflammatory language to describe our politicians as having "raided the trust fund". I don’t happen to be outraged.

The "trust" is filled with IOU's (the bonds) and the gov. as of today can't make good on the bonds without borrowing....
Exactly what I told you in Post 82

I realize and accept that the government has a variety of revenue sources, including FICA taxes, and a variety of expenditures, including Social Security benefits.

Good for you, you PAW

There is — and never has been — any real link between our Social Security benefits and the FICA taxes that we pay. What the Social Security trust fund does represent is a legal obligation for our government to repay the principal and interest on the special bonds in the trust fund.

Why do keep repeating what I already explained in Post 82....do you think it makes you smart to parrot what I've said ?

I have faith that these bonds will be honored — provided that future generations can afford to repay the bonds.

Today FICA taxes aren't enough to pay the SS bill....right now, today...the shortfall is being covered by the gov. borrowing

The debate on the Social Security trust fund is really a distraction from the real debate...

IN 2037, all the bonds will have been redeemed and there will only be the collection of FICA taxes to cover the SS bill.....an amount not even close to the total cost...

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retireme...-security-trust-fund-myth/2944/#ixzz1Zfd6OqLh
Click to expand...

You're dismissed...
 
Last edited:
Plain English...

The Social Security trust fund surplus currently totals $2.5 trillion, and it is required by law to be held in special U.S. Treasuries.


Government was supposed to hold that surplus "in trust" - literally - for America's citizens.


Starting in 1969, in an agreement between Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the 1969 Congress, the Social Security surplus was brought "on budget" for the first time. That $2.5 trillion has been spent in its entirety on other government programs, and the practice has continued on and off to the present day. (Source: the Social Security website; see Agency History).


Because those Treasuries have been spent, they can only be paid back - that is, redeemed - by future taxes or future borrowing.
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
How am I stirring up class warfare?

Conservatives are the ones screaming 'crisis', aren't they?

Social Security is solvent for years to come as it is.

If you're still pissing your pink panties about it anyway, tell your Congresspeople and Senators you want the the income cap lifted.
Click to expand...

You are just factually WRONG about the solvency of Social Security. You believe something that is FALSE. You continue to spew what you believe, which is a demonstrable LIE, and you hope (well maybe not you, because you're too stupid) but the Liberal Communist Socialists hope, that people are too dumb to figure out the truth before it's too late. We're going to get to see how dumb people are, in November of next year. Could be, that a majority of America, is in fact, stupid beyond belief, and re-elect Obama and leave Democrats in control of the Senate. In which case, Social Security getting fixed is not going to happen anytime soon, which means it will probably be too late to salvage the program.... hey, that works for me... when it's completely dead and no hope for revival, maybe we can replace it with something that isn't a Socialist Ponzi Scheme?
 
Dixie said:
You are just factually WRONG about the solvency of Social Security. You believe something that is FALSE. You continue to spew what you believe, which is a demonstrable LIE, and you hope (well maybe not you, because you're too stupid) but the Liberal Communist Socialists hope, that people are too dumb to figure out the truth before it's too late. We're going to get to see how dumb people are, in November of next year. Could be, that a majority of America, is in fact, stupid beyond belief, and re-elect Obama and leave Democrats in control of the Senate. In which case, Social Security getting fixed is not going to happen anytime soon, which means it will probably be too late to salvage the program.... hey, that works for me... when it's completely dead and no hope for revival, maybe we can replace it with something that isn't a Socialist Ponzi Scheme?
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence that I'm wrong?

Where's the proof that I've bought into a demonstrable lie?

If it's demonstrable, why haven't you cited any factual sources to rebut it?

Am I supposed to accept your insults, emotional appeals, and fondness for capitalization in lieu of rational arguments?

Thanks for the laughs.
 
bravo said:
Why re-read it...the bottom line is, I understand what was said and you don't.... nothing they claim is untrue

Normal Insurance, as in car, life, health, accident, etc. is the voluntary pooling of risks, to insure that should one suffer from misfortune, the buyer is protected....if you don't suffer any misfortune, you DON'T get anything for your purchase..........

The purpose of 'social insurance' is to confiscate, by force of law, from everyone, and give to a designated class of beneficiaries......so it is not insurance at all....it is a transfer of money from one group to another group.....

I'm not condoning or condemning either scenario, I'm explaining it..... .

But all of this irrelevant to the topic of the thread.....
The bottom line of the topic is, a man paid for SS and Medicare and was advised to take advantage of his purchase.....perfectly normal and sane advice whether one agrees with the purchase or not,
It is not hypocritical to advise someone to use what they buy, no matter what you personally think of the purchase

Your left wing spin is just 100% partisan bullshit as are most rants and raves from the left...much ado about nothing...mis-charactization of another's words in order to give credence to a lie...

.
Click to expand...

You're in way over your head, buddy. Read the paragraph and tell me again how I'm spreading lies.

"These are long-standing tenets for the Kochs. In 1980, David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket, pledging to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve System, welfare, minimum wage laws and federal agencies -- including the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...aw-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
 
christiefan915 said:
You're in way over your head, buddy. Read the paragraph and tell me again how I'm spreading lies.

"These are long-standing tenets for the Kochs. In 1980, David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket, pledging to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve System, welfare, minimum wage laws and federal agencies -- including the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...aw-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
Click to expand...


Lets try one more time.....I don't give a shit what the Koch people think about SS, the weather, the color blue, or salt on their food....

The bottom line of the topic is, a man paid for SS and Medicare and was advised to take advantage of his purchase.....perfectly normal and sane advice whether one agrees with the purchase or not,

It is not hypocritical to advise someone to use what they buy, no matter what you personally think of the purchase

Your left wing spin is just 100% partisan bullshit as are most rants and raves from the left...much ado about nothing...

And now I'm done playing with you.....you're starting to bore me to death...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top