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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Once again: The Social Security Trust Fund is neither a fiction nor bankrupt. That is a myth. [View all]Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)27. Relax, this money can just be printed when it is needed to be paid out. nt
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
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
Interesting how you ignore what I said and change your argument. First it was that "we the people"
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#50
The 'legal protecton' issue is a red-herring. Since the securities are an internel-debt obligation
PoliticAverse
Apr 2012
#13
Are you saying the government will have no financial difficulty redeeming the SS T Bonds?
Fumesucker
Apr 2012
#7
They still are pushing that meme on the MSM. I just saw one yesterday with the headline
Cleita
Apr 2012
#9
Also, according to Bernie Sanders SS will still be able to pay 80% of benefits even
Cleita
Apr 2012
#14
Let's just cut benefits by 25% NOW, then, so that seniors in 2033 can get what's been promised!
Romulox
Apr 2012
#89
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
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
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
No, this is also incorrect. Every dollar spent from the Trust Fund offset other potential borrowing
Romulox
Apr 2012
#42
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
Bank of America's obligations (SHOULD'NT) be on the shoulders on unborn taxpayers.
Romulox
Apr 2012
#88
No. Private businesses are typically capitalized by investors, not taxpayers. Banks are special,
Romulox
Apr 2012
#95
Well, I did *literally mean* taxpayers, since that's what this discussion is about. nt
Romulox
Apr 2012
#102
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
401ks are really a horrible example of long term fiscal dependability. Probably the worst you
Romulox
Apr 2012
#86
401ks are NOT guaranteed by future tax payers. They have little (or nothing) in common with SS. nt
Romulox
Apr 2012
#97
Snark removed: The future stream of payments to SS beneficiaries will be from future taxpayers.
Romulox
Apr 2012
#100
Um, this thread is about the so-called "Social Security Trust Fund". That's created from payroll
Romulox
Apr 2012
#105
Facepalm backatcha. SS has a structural deficit such that it cannot pay out scheduled benefits.
Romulox
Apr 2012
#110
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
LOL at this: "Regardless of how the borrower will come up with the cash..." That's the rub, innit?
Romulox
Apr 2012
#131
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
Relax, this money can just be printed when it is needed to be paid out. nt
Snake Alchemist
Apr 2012
#27
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
OK, so you're saying Social Security is fine because we can always roll the printing presses
Nye Bevan
Apr 2012
#60
They are included in government debt statistics. They are considered 'Intragovernmental Holdings'
PoliticAverse
Apr 2012
#38
People don't want to lift the income cap, because they don't want benefits means-tested.
Romulox
Apr 2012
#44
It's not my argument, so don't rail against me. Google previous DU discussions on the subject.
Romulox
Apr 2012
#90
If semantics get you there, I'm fine with that. Your suggestion would be right in line
Romulox
Apr 2012
#158
"the government does not have the money to repay the money it has "borrowed" or "stolen.""
girl gone mad
Apr 2012
#57
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
I understand your point. We can roll the printing presses, so SS will always be fine.
Nye Bevan
Apr 2012
#63
And since you have the ability to print your own money and issue your own debt...
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2012
#121
Except for the fact that future lenders would take that into account, yes.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2012
#155
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
Thank you. It used to annoy the living shit out of me when I was down
coalition_unwilling
Apr 2012
#61
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
I dunno. Ours has some pretty cool buildings. And the Interstate Highway system
Recursion
Apr 2012
#115
The trillions burned up in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been "invested" in interest bearing accounts
Romulox
Apr 2012
#96
reagan didn't call the g-span commission to "raise money," he called it because the SS TF was
HiPointDem
Apr 2012
#137
The trust fund has still never had a year in deficit. I'm so tired of that lie
Recursion
Apr 2012
#139
The first year that benefits are not paid is the first year that "full faith and credit" dies.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2012
#157