03 Aug 11
The author of this book claims that the SS surplus was not used to purchase bonds like many claimed. He also makes many other claims that are critical of guys like Allan Greenspan and many presidents, pretty much calling them all crooks regardless of political party.
http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/#tap
My question is simple. Is the information contained in this link accurate?
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainAre you going to attack the people who say "no" or the people who say "yes"?
The author of this book claims that the SS surplus was not used to purchase bonds like many claimed. He also makes many other claims that are critical of guys like Allan Greenspan and many presidents, pretty much calling them all crooks regardless of political party.
http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-tr ...[text shortened]... on-surplus-go/#tap
My question is simple. Is the information contained in this link accurate?
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainHow would we know?
The author of this book claims that the SS surplus was not used to purchase bonds like many claimed. He also makes many other claims that are critical of guys like Allan Greenspan and many presidents, pretty much calling them all crooks regardless of political party.
http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-tr ...[text shortened]... on-surplus-go/#tap
My question is simple. Is the information contained in this link accurate?
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal Brainahh. lazy.
I was hoping others here had already done the research so I would not have to. I figured this topic may have come up before on RHP forums. Has it?
rule of thumb, if it involves the government, chances are they are crooks. greenspan, definite crook.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSometimes, yes.
ahh. lazy.
rule of thumb, if it involves the government, chances are they are crooks. greenspan, definite crook.
I don't doubt the claims of the author. I just wanted to give the others a chance to refute it just in case.
Yes, Greenspan is a major league crook! Government is like organized crime. No doubt about it.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainI've heard this line before, and mostly it is from people who just don't understand that whether government or private business, you don't leave trillions of dollars sitting around not earning interest. In the past, US Treasuries were probably the most conservative (safest) place to invest money although at a low rate of return.
The author of this book claims that the SS surplus was not used to purchase bonds like many claimed. He also makes many other claims that are critical of guys like Allan Greenspan and many presidents, pretty much calling them all crooks regardless of political party.
http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-tr ...[text shortened]... on-surplus-go/#tap
My question is simple. Is the information contained in this link accurate?
Over the years, the matter of whether the Trust fund surplus could or should be included in the budget deficit would come up for debate. The long and short of it is that 2T plus is money we owe to ourselves, the SS Trust fund. That is if our government is both competent and honest, two very big ifs.
Yes, the money has been spent, after the government borrowed the money from themselves. The more real worry ought to be that Social Security has unfunded liabilities upwards of 100T, even if the old surplus were to be repaid. Medicare is pay as you go, and will be broke much sooner, without additional funding.
What several States have done in similar budget crunches, is to toss out all previous assumptions, promises, and goals. Start with a clean slate, and determine with current revenue what are we able to do. Set priorities, without the arguments about who is getting cut.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignMoney we owe ourselves? Listen to yourself. You are making no sense.
I've heard this line before, and mostly it is from people who just don't understand that whether government or private business, you don't leave trillions of dollars sitting around not earning interest. In the past, US Treasuries were probably the most conservative (safest) place to invest money although at a low rate of return.
Over the years, the ma ...[text shortened]... enue what are we able to do. Set priorities, without the arguments about who is getting cut.
SS money belongs to those that paid into SS, not government cads that want to use it for something else! If that money were invested in treasury bonds they would earn interest and still be there for SS. Now the money is not there and your government cads (who you refer to as ourselves) must borrow the money to replace it and charge the taxpayer interest for it.
Now they want to raise the retirement age for SS because they can't replace the money without increasing the debt. If they had not looted the SS funds there would be enough money there that raising the retirement age would NOT BE NECESSARY.
07 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal Brain(Sigh) It's been pointed out several times on this board that the SS Trust Fund does earn interest. To wit:
Money we owe ourselves? Listen to yourself. You are making no sense.
SS money belongs to those that paid into SS, not government cads that want to use it for something else! If that money were invested in treasury bonds they would earn interest and still be there for SS. Now the money is not there and your government cads (who you refer to as ourselve ...[text shortened]... funds there would be enough money there that raising the retirement age would NOT BE NECESSARY.
By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.
In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.
Data on trust fund investments provide a breakdown by interest rate and trust fund for any month after 1989.
The rate of interest on special issues is determined by a formula enacted in 1960. The rate is determined at the end of each month and applies to new investments in the following month.
The numeric average of the 12 monthly interest rates for 2010 was 2.760 percent. The annual effective interest rate (the average rate of return on all investments over a one-year period) for the OASI and DI Trust Funds, combined, was 4.642 percent in 2010. This higher effective rate resulted because the funds hold special-issue bonds acquired in past years when interest rates were higher.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n3
08 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainThat's a good argument for not starting the program in the first place, but the T bills are debt instruments of the US Government, which must be paid back to Social Security. Even if they are, there is no where near enough money to honor the commitments made.
Money we owe ourselves? Listen to yourself. You are making no sense.
SS money belongs to those that paid into SS, not government cads that want to use it for something else! If that money were invested in treasury bonds they would earn interest and still be there for SS. Now the money is not there and your government cads (who you refer to as ourselve ...[text shortened]... funds there would be enough money there that raising the retirement age would NOT BE NECESSARY.
If the money weren't invested in T Bills, and were stuffed into Al Gore's lock box, there would be even less to pay for the unrealistic promises.
08 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignOnly among US far right wingers is it considered an "unrealistic promise" to tell people who have worked their whole lives that there will be something there for them when they retire.
That's a good argument for not starting the program in the first place, but the T bills are debt instruments of the US Government, which must be paid back to Social Security. Even if they are, there is no where near enough money to honor the commitments made.
If the money weren't invested in T Bills, and were stuffed into Al Gore's lock box, there would be even less to pay for the unrealistic promises.
08 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainThis topic has come up before. I am not inclined right now to rehash it. You really should do some research yourself, especially before you try to shoot down the very people willing to entertain your laziness.
Money we owe ourselves? Listen to yourself. You are making no sense.
SS money belongs to those that paid into SS, not government cads that want to use it for something else! If that money were invested in treasury bonds they would earn interest and still be there for SS. Now the money is not there and your government cads (who you refer to as ourselve ...[text shortened]... funds there would be enough money there that raising the retirement age would NOT BE NECESSARY.
08 Aug 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat is 'there' when they retire is their business, not yours and not the gummints, SS is just another tax. Believe it or not no1 people can prepare for their own retirement without your help.
Only among US far right wingers is it considered an "unrealistic promise" to tell people who have worked their whole lives that there will be something there for them when they retire.
If you think you've got some good ideas become an independent advisor, if your ideas are good you'll soon have a huge client base and they'd all be there (block your ears and cover your eyes no1) voluntarily.