20
   

Will Republicans take the Senate in the election?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 02:20 am
@hawkeye10,
The trust fund exists; it's backed by the US Treasury. The government borrowed that money, and pays interest on it. It's like any loan. When they pay out the benefits, who do you think writes the checks? One guess.

It's no different than any consumer or business with their money in any bank. It's insured by the FDIC. They don't have enough cash to pay out all demands at once, so their cash shortage is insured by the government up to $250,000 per depositor. Hardly any difference.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 02:26 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The trust fund exists; it's backed by the US Treasury
You do realize that the money has not been borrowed yet? The government can not claim that is is holding money in trust when it in fact has no money. Logic 101 my boy, perhaps even a remedial course.

Alzheimer's? You used to know something about economics I have heard
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 02:31 am
@hawkeye10,
No, you really don't understand how this functions. Workers still pay into the trust fund, and last year's revenue was more than expenses. However, with the additional benefits now included from these funds, there is a danger of the trust fund running out of money. We can blame that to both parties who have controlled the administration and congress for not acting to take care of this future shortfall. Their incompetence is what's going to bankrupt the fund; that's a fact.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 07:42 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
You would have to question the Social Security Administration who administers the funds


Wait just one cotton picking minute (why dont we say this anymore?), you think there is a trust fund to back your checks? Laughing Laughing Laughing Shocked

You buddy have lost the right to claim to know anything about economics.


There is a trust fund, Hawk. In fact, there are two of them.

Yes, they are mostly holding government notes and bonds in those trust funds...but that does not mean they do not exist. Many other funds throughout the economy hold paper rather than dollar bills.

What are you and George thinking here?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 06:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:


What are you and George thinking here?[/b]


The laws applicable to commercial pension and insurance funds and other like Trusts, require the presence of liquid (i.e.immediately convertable to cash) assets that represent a apecified fraction of the actuarially calculated present value of future obligations. Violations of various degrees occur with some regularity, but the standards are ultimately enforced. Government funds at both state and Federal levels don't meet those standards and are exempt from such regulation. For example the public pension funds of many states like Illinois and, to a lesser degree, Californa are significantly underfunded. The Social security "Trust", as you noted, contains only Federal IOUs with zero liquidity. If the assets are required the Federal government must issue new debt (i.e. borrow money) to cover them.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 08:29 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:


What are you and George thinking here?[/b]


The laws applicable to commercial pension and insurance funds and other like Trusts, require the presence of liquid (i.e.immediately convertable to cash) assets that represent a apecified fraction of the actuarially calculated present value of future obligations. Violations of various degrees occur with some regularity, but the standards are ultimately enforced. Government funds at both state and Federal levels don't meet those standards and are exempt from such regulation. For example the public pension funds of many states like Illinois and, to a lesser degree, Californa are significantly underfunded. The Social security "Trust", as you noted, contains only Federal IOUs with zero liquidity. If the assets are required the Federal government must issue new debt (i.e. borrow money) to cover them.


George...there are two Social Security Trust Funds.

For you and Hawk to suggest there are NO Trust Funds for Social Security...is an absurdity.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 08:50 pm
@georgeob1,
US Treasury bonds are as good as cash. They're traded on the 'open' market every business day when stock markets are open.

If you know something everybody else is lacking, why you you contact all the bond holders and tell them they're not liquid. LOL

As for the underfunded pension funds, the taxpayers will be responsible to make up the shortage.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 10:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I forgot about the article on pensions in California's agencies. Public pensions had plenty of money ten years ago, but many are now short billions of dollars that the taxpayers will be in hook for to pay for future public worker's retirement. The biggest of them all, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (called CALPERS) will need an additional $57 billion to meet future obligations. The state Controller, John Chiang, wants to make this information public to provide transparency of this problem.

Website: ByTheNumbers.sco.ca.gov
I'll be visiting the site soon.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 10:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Actually, the treasury issues allowed for SSA can only be sold to the Treasury Department. Not quite as liquid as others. No more likely to default, though.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 10:54 pm
@roger,
The US Treasury can't afford to default on its bonds. It would create a world crisis.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 09:14 am
@georgeob1,
The not enough in taxes is a reality. We have spent the money and just borrowed it from SS and other trust funds. It makes the general fund the ponzi scheme since that is the fund that isn't taking in enough to cover the costs.

Quote:
You are, of course free to contribute extra taxes to do your share, I cordially decline
Ah. the ole you pay for the problem cause I don't want to excuse. I always love how conservatives that claim to love their country more than others demand that they not help pay to fix a problem. I read the story of The Little Red Hen as a child. Perhaps you need to read it as an adult.

Quote:
About 48% of our electrical energy is produced by burning coal.

It's less than 40% as of last year.

Quote:
In case you haven't noticed the Dodd Frank Bill, the ACA, recent far-reaching regulatory actions of the EPA, the Labor Department, and the NLRB have added enormously to the useless chicken **** imposed by the Federal government on businesses of all sorts across the country.

Meaningless blather that doesn't support your statement that Obama is trying to create a highly regulated economy to advance his political power.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 09:18 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
This "Trust Fund" is in fact an accounting fiction that would be illegal were any bank or insurance company to do it. Instead current benefits are paid out of curent revenues independently of their source. This is the essential definition of a Ponzi scheme.

No, it's not the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. It's the definition of a government's taxation policy. A government uses revenues to pay current expenses.
A Ponzi scheme enriches the group running the scheme. Who is getting rich from the failure of the Federal government to tax income enough to pay it's bills?

Hmmmm.... I wonder who should be taxed more? I wonder who pays lobbyists and donates to legislators to enrich themselves at the expense of SS having to make up the fact that not enough is coming in from income taxes.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 09:21 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You are merely repeating a semantical fiction. You cling to your illusions with a remarkable tenacity, but they are still illusions. There is no Trust Fund: what we have instead is a large collection of IOUs from the Federal government.


Speaking of semantical fictions. Using your logic depositers at banks don't have any money in their accounts. But I doubt you would argue that those depositers have no claim on their money like you are arguing that SS has no claim on the moneys owed it.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 09:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

US Treasury bonds are as good as cash. They're traded on the 'open' market every business day when stock markets are open.


I believe the SS trust fund and other government trusts hold bonds that can not be traded on the open market. They are specifically created for intergovernmental use.

*edit - I guess Roger already pointed that out.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 10:24 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

A Ponzi scheme enriches the group running the scheme. Who is getting rich from the failure of the Federal government to tax income enough to pay it's bills?
I believe recent economic data indicates that the most prosperous large urban area in the country is Washington DC and the surrounding Maryland and Virginia suburbs. What is the main economic engine of that area?

parados wrote:

Hmmmm.... I wonder who should be taxed more? I wonder who pays lobbyists and donates to legislators to enrich themselves at the expense of SS having to make up the fact that not enough is coming in from income taxes.
Hollywond types; rich donors like Tom Steyer who have a long track record of funding wasteful and ineffective economic and political enterprises; labor unions, now with mostly government employee membership which were given monopoly control of huge groups of state and Federal employees (and about 1% of their wages) by administrative fiat without any of the prescribed measuires of employee consent specified in the law; etc. There is no shortage of money available to our liberal establishment which seeks to lead us all to a new social economic paradise run by bureaucrats whoi think they know better than the rest of us.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 10:40 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

You are merely repeating a semantical fiction. You cling to your illusions with a remarkable tenacity, but they are still illusions. There is no Trust Fund: what we have instead is a large collection of IOUs from the Federal government.


Speaking of semantical fictions. Using your logic depositers at banks don't have any money in their accounts. But I doubt you would argue that those depositers have no claim on their money like you are arguing that SS has no claim on the moneys owed it.



You are again evading the question and (deliberately I believe) distorting the facts. . I was specific in my comparison of the Federal SS "Trust" with the legal structure attending non government annuities and insurance programs. Unlike them Government programs are frequently underfunded and/or managed with blatantly deceptive accounting fictions by politicians eager to gasin favor and power through government spending. There are numerous examples of this out there, with the Illinois public employee pension fuynd being the currently most egregious example.

While State funds do set aside liquid assets and securities in their funds (though often in insufficient quantities) the Federal SS trust includes only Federal IOUs which have zero market value. It's true that the Federal Government could issue more debt to cover any demand on this trust. However, it is more than merely interesting that the data the government publishes for our national debt includes only the bonds and similar borrowings that currently exist - its future obligations for the SS Trust are not included. So what's in this SS Trust Fund is neither money, or liquid assets or even government bonds. Instead it's merely a promise. That is my central point and, notwithstanding your attempts to evade or clout it with irelevant distractions, I am entirely correct in making it.

Your comparison with Banks is deliberately misleading and I think you know it. Banks are heavily regulated and are required to have an explicitly specified percentage of their current deposits in reserve to cover them. This fraction is lower than that required for things like annuity or insurance funsds precisely because the banking system is the built in shock absorber for our money system and it has access to a quasi Federal Agency, the Federal Reserve, with a legally specified role in this system and the authority to make rules for banking operations and issue debt to support it.

coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 11:16 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You are again evading the question and (deliberately I believe) distorting the facts.


It is what he does. You might be better off ignoring him.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:19 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

parados wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

You are merely repeating a semantical fiction. You cling to your illusions with a remarkable tenacity, but they are still illusions. There is no Trust Fund: what we have instead is a large collection of IOUs from the Federal government.


Speaking of semantical fictions. Using your logic depositers at banks don't have any money in their accounts. But I doubt you would argue that those depositers have no claim on their money like you are arguing that SS has no claim on the moneys owed it.



You are again evading the question and (deliberately I believe) distorting the facts. . I was specific in my comparison of the Federal SS "Trust" with the legal structure attending non government annuities and insurance programs. Unlike them Government programs are frequently underfunded and/or managed with blatantly deceptive accounting fictions by politicians eager to gasin favor and power through government spending. There are numerous examples of this out there, with the Illinois public employee pension fuynd being the currently most egregious example.

While State funds do set aside liquid assets and securities in their funds (though often in insufficient quantities) the Federal SS trust includes only Federal IOUs which have zero market value. It's true that the Federal Government could issue more debt to cover any demand on this trust. However, it is more than merely interesting that the data the government publishes for our national debt includes only the bonds and similar borrowings that currently exist - its future obligations for the SS Trust are not included. So what's in this SS Trust Fund is neither money, or liquid assets or even government bonds. Instead it's merely a promise. That is my central point and, notwithstanding your attempts to evade or clout it with irelevant distractions, I am entirely correct in making it.

Your comparison with Banks is deliberately misleading and I think you know it. Banks are heavily regulated and are required to have an explicitly specified percentage of their current deposits in reserve to cover them. This fraction is lower than that required for things like annuity or insurance funsds precisely because the banking system is the built in shock absorber for our money system and it has access to a quasi Federal Agency, the Federal Reserve, with a legally specified role in this system and the authority to make rules for banking operations and issue debt to support it.




You, George, are deliberately refusing to concede that your comment that there is no Social Security Trust Fund...IS WRONG.

There is one. In fact, there are two.

C'mon.

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

You, George, are deliberately refusing to concede that your comment that there is no Social Security Trust Fund...IS WRONG.

There is one. In fact, there are two.

C'mon.

These are indeed things, and they are labeled as Trust Funds, but, unlike any others, they have no liquid tangible assets. In that area they don't meet - indeed they explicitly violate - the Federal requirements imposed on all other things bearing that name.

Does that please you more ?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 04:00 pm
@georgeob1,
Their tangible assets are backed by the US Treasury. That's about as liquid as any asset can get.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/25/2021 at 11:49:34