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]Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)147. And as soon as you become a sovereign nation, it will work for you, too. n/t
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