Will Republicans take the Senate in the election?

The trust fund exists; it's backed by the US Treasury

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?

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

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

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.

You are, of course free to contribute extra taxes to do your share, I cordially decline

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.