Now there is no doubt that it has helped alleviate poverty for many people and probably will for the foreseeable future. But the first line item is false as is the last item which is nothing but bonds or a loan to the government.
From John Hawkins: After you pay your social security taxes the government takes the money and spends it. Yes you heard me correctly, they spend it. They spend it on debt reduction, welfare, the military, government salaries, and all the other things the government spends your money on.
Now you’re probably thinking “Wait a second Hawkins, what do you mean we spend it? If we spend that money, how can there be a trust fund?” It’s an accounting trick. After the money is spent, the government creates non-negotiable bonds for the same amount that’s spent. Now you’re probably thinking “There you go Hawkins, the money is in bonds.”
But what is a bond? It’s basically a loan. Typically, you loan the government your money and they pay it back with interest after a period of time. In this case, the money has already been spent and government is loaning itself money and paying it back with interest after a period of time. Now here’s the kicker. How does the government pay these bonds back? With tax money.
It's very significant that in the next 10 years, Social Security will add a half-trillion dollars to the deficit. Social Security would be a good place to start when dealing with these mandatory entitlement programs that are 57 percent of our budget. - Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
From NPR At a recent Senate Budget Committee hearing on the nation's economic outlook, Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) noted there's been a sea change in Social Security's finances.
"My staff informs me under the new report, Social Security has gone permanently cash negative now. Is that the case?" he asked.
"Yes, that's right," came the response from Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf, whose agency prepared the report.
Conrad added that the time had finally come for the money Social Security has lent the federal government to be paid back.
"How's it going to be paid back? It's going to be paid back by the other general expenditure of the federal government having to be reduced to make way for the payments that we're going to have to make on those bonds," he said.
In other words, it is adding to the deficit ever since 2010 when it went cash negative. There is no cash in the system, it is all bonds that the government has to pay back plus interest.
And the outlook when this 'surplus' is gone is really bad. In present value terms for sustainability, the government would have to invest 8.6 trillion right now at make 2.9% above inflation to meet its needs. That is not possible.
But then you have shining examples of stupid like Harry Reid (D for Dumb) saying: Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt, and as I've said before, people should leave Social Security alone.. Unfortuately idiot, we can't leave it alone, it needs fixing or we dig ourselves into oblivion.
This could mean people have to retire later than they’re planning to. Some of our senior citizens may not have as much income as they previously thought. Taxes may have to be raised significantly much sooner than we’d anticipated. When the politicians tell you that we won’t have to deal with these decisions anytime soon because of the trust fund, remember where the money is really going to come from…your pocket.
One way or another this will get fixed. Hopefully planned rather than full on failure.
Impressive. You've managed to learn not a single thing about Soc Sec in all the arguments we've had about it. You still make the same basic error about its trust fund.
Medicare costs are rising at 9+% annually. A little math says that costs are doubling about every 7 years or so. If you are 55, your benefits will not change. (According to Ryan's plan, or Obama's for that matter) A 55-year old's approximate life expectancy is 30 more years.
Starting from today ($820 billion):
$1,640 billion in seven years $3,280 billion in fourteen $6,560 billion in twenty-one $13,120 billion in twenty-eight
That's $13 trillion dollars.
The entire Federal Budget today is $3.8 trillion and, we're only taxing about $2.6 trillion -- so that, in fact, is all we have to spend.
If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
You are arguing something that is already decided. Math (plus a calendar) has come to a conclusion.
The problem here, folks, is that you are incapable of looking at Social Security without bias. You don't like government social programs so you have your version of what the program is and what will happen to it. Because I don't accept your version as reality, then I must be making "basic errors." In many ways, the manner in which you talk about this subject is illustrative of how you talk about everything else...with severe ideological blockage.
The government does not borrow money to pay for the program nor does it add to the debt. It is a self sustaining program that is paid for by payroll taxes. It is not going broke but does need reinforcement for the future and by that I mean the year 2023.
Take a look at this reinforcement solution to Social Security.
If you can't get past the basic facts of these links for whatever reason, discussion is pointless although maybe I am expecting too much. Perhaps we can start with a small admittance that US Treasury Bonds are the safest investment in the world.
Actually M I think the election will have the same consequences regardless of who wins. The margins really are that small, which is why the hullabaloo about the vastness is all the more ridiculous.
Mark, your comment is an absolutely perfect example of why I have no respect for you intellectually. Just beautiful. Lets go through it:
1: you post a graphic that makes some claims about Soc Sec. 2: You get some criticism of some of those claims. 6Kings does the most substantive criticism, and takes issue with the 1st and 4th points, pointing out that Soc Sec surpluses are spent, not saved, and that the money needed to redeem bonds comes from taxing, borrowing, or printing. In other words, redeeming those bonds most certainly does add to the national debt.
Now we get to your response. I think most people, in seeing your response, would expect that you would do something that points out why you think 6kings is wrong. In other words, you would point out why redeeming soc sec bonds doesn't add to the national debt, for example, or maybe why his description of what happens to Soc Sec money is wrong. What we get is:
First, Marks usual armchair psychoanalyzing. You have a tough time getting through a post or comment thread without bringing this kind of stuff up at least once these days. I've wondered - why isn't it enough for you to just say why you think we are wrong, rather than trying to come up with some kind of "they aren't just incorrect, it's their worldview that is fundamentally flawed!" rationalization? After, you wouldn't accept my speculations about the underlying reasons for your idiocy, why would you think yours carry a speck of weight with me? Anyway, nothing you said in the first paragraph has anything to do with what 6Kings said.
Next, Mark seems to belatedly realize that just saying "you guys are anti-government meanies!" isn't much of an argument, so he figures he better throw something out there so he can seem all factual and stuff. He even labels his links "basic facts." The first link is a link to a 2 pager by the "Economic Opportunity Institute". In it, a bunch of claims are made about Soc Sec. No citations or links are offered to primary sources. The closest any of these claims get to addressing what 6Kings said is this:
"Some fear the government is spending the trust fund instead of saving it. Actually, the trust fund is invested in U.S. Treasury bonds, which are widely considered the safest investment in the world."
Which is not germane to 6Kings point - *how* those bonds are redeemed is the point, and where the money comes from to redeem them. Basic facts Mark?
Next, Mark links to an actuarial projection from the SS trustees. First off, since these are projections, they are by definition not facts, basic or otherwise. In fact, the doc has 3 different projections, all using different cost assumptions. Second, I don't know what this has to do with 6Kings point. Yes, the Soc Sec trustees keep track of how much money is in the "trust fund" and how much interest it produces. Where does that money come from? Basic facts Mark?
"The government does not borrow money to pay for the program nor does it add to the debt. It is a self sustaining program that is paid for by payroll taxes."
Now, keep in mind here - none of Mark's links have addressed what 6Kings said. Nothing Mark has said has done so either. So he is simply asserting that the above is true, with no sources and no reasoning. So I will repeat it again Mark - when Soc Sec redeems bonds, as it has been since 2010, where does the money for those bonds come from? A magic tree?
So Mark decides to link to one more thing - a speech given by economist Monique Morrissey in 2010 to Congress. In it she says that modest payroll tax increases are all thats needed to keep Soc Sec running great, because there is this big trust fund earning interest that makes the shortfall trivial. Once again, a speech is not "basic facts", and once again, this has nothing to do with 6Kings point, and only serves to highlight the big confusion here - the nature of Soc Sec's trust fund. A confusion that Mark has done nothing to clarify here, presumably because he doesn't understand it himself.
"If you can't get past the basic facts of these links for whatever reason, discussion is pointless although maybe I am expecting too much."
As shown, these are anything but "basic facts." But if we don't accept Mark's "facts", discussion is pointless. Well, I do agree about the pointless part, as we've been through all this multiple times in comment sections on this blog - which is what my first comment references.
Lastly - Mark wants an admission that US Treasury bonds are the safest in the world. Once again, this ignores 6Kings point, which is what has to happen for those bonds to be redeemed, and what that does to the national debt, and also that the *safety* of bonds is not something that is being questioned. This also ignores another thing that 6Kinds didn't mention, but I will here. Mark - Soc Sec bonds are not the same as US Treasury bonds. They are not brought or sold on a market. If you don't believe me, try to buy some and see how far you get.
In summary: Mark saw a criticism of his position. He responded by: 1. armchair psychoanalyzing 2. Throwing up smoke and handwaving by posting links to things that didn't respond to the criticism, and stating that those links were "basic facts" that were some mix of unsourced facts (some of which are no doubt true) and opinion. 3. asserting that the criticsm wasn't true on the basis of .. Mark saying it isn't true 4. saying that if we don't agree with his facts-that-aren't-facts, he's too good to discuss the subject
It was just too good - it's some of his most tried and true, idiotic, intellectually lazy, and downright dishonest tactics. All in one comment. As is always the case, I weep for each young mind you ruin.
Btw - we've talked all this through and you've already shown yourself to be completely bankrupt on the subject, but on the off chance you or anyone else wants to educate themselves on the subject, the main disagreement here has to do with whether the Soc Sec trust fund consists of real assets that can be drawn down, like a retirement fund or a bank account, when incoming payroll receipts are less than outgoing. Here are some things to ponder:
1. Soc Sec gets 2 dollars in payroll taxes. It spends one dollar by sending it to retirees. It gives the second dollar to Congress, who spends it in exchange for a bond worth a dollar and interest. When Soc Sec redeems that bond, where does that third dollar and interest come from? 2. Why did the OMB say this (from wiki):
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)
and what does it mean? 3. If tomorrow Congress declared that the Trust Fund didn't exist anymore, and that from here on out all Soc Sec benefits not covered by payroll taxes were instead paid directly out of general revenues, (taxes, borrowing, printing) what, if anything, would change about Soc Sec's financial condition?
Wow, Hap, I think you've officially taken over as being the most obsessed with me of all of Kevin's posters. Several long paragraphs about yours truly and how I'm (insert overly nervous, obviously insecure, and massively obsessive comment here) and not really much substance about the issue at hand. Do you honestly believe that engaging in such an adolescent display is going to prove anything?
They aren't "my facts," Hap. They are simply the facts about Social Security. What you and your ilk are doing is spinning a tale that is born out of an inbred bias about social programs. This clearly frustrates you and the others because it ruins your objectivity (Oh no!) . So you turn to personal attacks (again) to mask reality. You'd think you would have learned by now that you have a "tell" :)
Hap responded to every one of your positions with a well laid out, logical argument and your response is that he is being adolescent. Look in the mirror Mark.
Not without using my personality as the basis for his response. I'll give 6Kings credit for at least starting off in a fair minded way even though he simply couldn't get around his own bias. But then he called the Democrats "dumb" and was then 8 years old.
This is truly a tough one for you guys because this is probably the most successful example of why the core of your ideology is deeply flawed. Worse, you have to intimate that the United States isn't capable of paying its bills in order to "win the argument"....a destructive lie with far greater consequences than Harry Reid's alleged falsehood.
The good news for you guys is that there will always be challenges with Social Security so at least you can still get all emotional and make shit up based on a quarter truth.
Democrats are dumb as they continue to espouse policies that nobody can pay for long term or in their current setup and won't allow adjustments to address fiscal reality. DUMB. And Harry Reid is the biggest ASS of the bunch. Heck, you can't even follow the math when wehave pointed out the facts of this overspending. Now we have Debt at 16+ Trillion or 100% of GDP, unfunded liabilities upwards of 100-200 Trillion and the Democrats (Repubs too although there are bright spots) keep piling it on thinking like you do, that the bill won't come due. And I am the one that is 8 years old? Please!
The US can pay its bills...by borrowing currently (1.2+ Trillion annually). It can probably do that for the next decade, maybe longer but it isn't sustainable. At some point (via math) our ability to fund anything other than interest on debt let alone the principle payment plus our 'mandatory' social programs will overwhelm our country (Currently 67% of government spending via OMB 2011 and almost 100% of Tax Revenue just for welfare, SS, Health, and Interest). The government now borrows the entire amount it needs to fund its original intent - Laws and defense! How about that?
As long as you continue to make dishonest statements like this one, yes. You aren't telling all of the truth here, you are panic mongering, and you are allowing your own bias to erode any sort of serious critical thinking.
. It can probably do that for the next decade, maybe longer but it isn't sustainable.
Finally, a glimmer of light. At least you admit it's a long term, not a short term, concern. What you fail to admit is that it is solvable. Over the next decade, we can make a few adjustments to Medicare and Social Security, cut 2 trillion dollars in spending, raise 1 trillion dollars in revenue (based on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for those making over 250K and eliminating subsidies and loopholes like cap gains), and we will be in better shape. This doesn't even account for the increase revenue that will likely occur as the economy improves.
If your consistent answer to 2+2 is 'hey look a puppy'
Your consistent response when I present facts you don't like is to say this in hopes no one will notice your lack of critical thought. I'm still wondering if you or anyone else is capable of making a point without mentioning my name.
Marks usual armchair psychoanalyzing.
Mark seems to belatedly realize that just saying
Basic facts Mark?
Mark links to an actuarial projection
Then we get a little commentary by Mark:
none of Mark's links have addressed
Nothing Mark has said has done so either.
So Mark decides to link to one more thing
Then, we have a gauntlet thrown down by Mark:
But if we don't accept Mark's "facts", discussion is pointless.
Mark wants an admission
Mark saw a criticism of his position.
And that's just the sentences in which he mentions my name. How can anyone take comments like this seriously?
Hey dipshit, the argument he is addressing is the one put forth by some idiot named Mark.
It should not be surprising to anyone except the serially ignorant the when addressing an argument to a person named Mark that one would utilize the use of the name Mark in doing so.
Of course, if you would prefer we make an argument without reference to you or any of your so called facts or points then you would first have to promise that you would never ever ever say that we are ignoring the "points" you made........
Oh wait....it's that normal back and forth thing in a discussion.....creeps up and hits you in the head....
You make a point, hap makes a counter point. He may have to actually reference your point (or lack of point if relevant) in order to - well FUCKING REPLY TO YOU AND YOUR ARGUMENT.
if you would prefer we make an argument without reference to you or any of your so called facts or points then you would first have to promise that you would never ever ever say that we are ignoring the "points" you made........
What I'm looking for is something you, Hap, and the others have continually insisted that you are: critical thinkers who use logic and reason in determining the best course of action. That means no personal commentary and a weighing of all available evidence without passion or bias.
Now, right away, we have a problem with Hap because he runs a small business and probably blows a bowel every time it's payroll tax time. Can Hap step outside of himself and be reasonable? Thus far, the answer to that is no.
This has largely been true with the issue of Social Security. You guys don't like it so you have an ax to grind. That ax involves privatizing it. So, all information that supports pursuing this action is presented with the rest conveniently left out.
I didn't make the points listed in this graphic. Bernie Sanders did so you should be able to leave me out of it. Leave Senator Sanders out of it too and just look at the statements. There are four of them so go ahead and say "True", "False", or somewhere in between to each one, answering each one honestly. And remember, by honestly, I don't mean only including the facts that support your argument. ALL the facts.
Notice that Mark isn't even trying to address anything related to Soc Sec and the points that 6Kings and I have made about it. He isn't talking about the structure of Soc Sec, or how its bonds function, or arguing with 6Kings and I about whether it contributes to the debt or not. Instead, he wants to talk about:
- The length/number of my initial set of posts - How the stuff he links to are "facts", conveniently ignoring my calling into question their description as "facts" - How my comment is adolescent, because.. well, I don't know. Maybe because he didn't like having his comment dissected. - How my comment somehow used his personality as a basis for its response, as if Soc Sec's structure and its effect on the debt has anything to do with Mark's personality. - How my posts use his name a lot. As GD pointed out, it's because I'm dissecting a comment made by a guy named Mark. Weird, that. - An entreaty to engage in critical thinking. Spoken, of course, by the person who utterly refuses to engage in any thinking, critical or otherwise, about any of the counter points made to his post and comments.
In short, Mark does just about anything but talk about the criticism of the graphic he put up, criticism that came in the very first comment. This is what he is folks. This is what he does. This is why he almost never has anything coherent, original, or meaningful to say.
And I just had to point this out:
>There are four of them so go ahead and say "True", "False", or somewhere in between to each one, answering each one honestly.
Mark: read the very first comment for the answer. The very first paragraph even! You try so hard, and fall so flat. You have my pity.
I'd be happy to talk about the criticism of Social Security, Hap. Make a logical, reasoned, and (fully) fact based analysis of it without any personal remarks, bias, or axes to grind. Don't leave out anything..a FULL analysis..except you could leave out the heading off at the pass comments (about time to accuse me of handwaving when you are the one actually doing it)
Until offer this full analysis, your assertions that you are an impartial analyst are bullshit.
6Kings made a small effort which I will grant him but his first paragraph loses all credibility when he called Democrats dumb. He then doubled down on those comments in a later comment which makes it very hard to take him seriously. The same goes for Guard Duck who, like you, wants to make this all about me. It's not about me. It's about Social Security.
Can you understand that concept before we go further?
Hmm...isn't this a sort of "So, how long have you been beating your wife" type of question?" You may as well have asked me, "Are you stupid or do you not understand math?"
I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to wriggle out of critical discussion regarding Social Security, GD. By setting the parameters as you did above, we're heading down the path of confirmation bias.
Start from an unbiased place. I gave 6Kings a chance to do it above (since he at least made a small step in that direction) by asking him to look at SS without bias. For example, if he had started with the two different measures of the deficit, we might have been able to look at SS in a critical way.
For you, you are purposefully leaving out key ingredients in how the system is set up. In short, you are not being honest and it's because you don't like Social Security and you want to win the argument. Hap has the same problem. Change that attitude and I'd be happy to have a discussion with you.
Well, math is honest, GD. So you're going to have to tell the truth and be that critical thinker that you say you are before we get anywhere. You aren't being either and worse you are oversimplifying the issue-what a shock. The issue of Social Secueity as it relates to budget deficits Is more complex than grade school marh.
The facts listed in the graphic are technically accurate, but they suffer from a lack of context and other relevant facts. First, as far as past and current FICA withholding totals compared to outlays, Social Security hasn't yet contributed to the deficit or debt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that's going to be changing soon. Second, before Social Security existed was the darkest depths of the Great Depression. That certainly had a very great deal to do with how many elderly were in poverty. Over 40% of everybody else was in poverty, too. It's easy to show dramatic improvement when you start measuring at a rock-bottom low point in modern history. Lastly, as others have pointed out, there is no "surplus" except on paper. The money's been spent and we've issued ourselves IOUs that will be paid off with either future tax increases or borrowing or by "running the printing presses" (electronically speaking). You can't eat all your cake today and still have it all left to eat tomorrow, too.
budget deficits Is more complex than grade school marh
So is rocket science - but if your grade school math is wrong that rocket won't fly.
you're going to have to tell the truth and be that critical thinker that you say you are before we get anywhere
Funny how you refer to math as honest - then refuse to discuss it. Makes it pretty obvious who's being dishonest.
Let's look at that critical thought statement of yours.
Who is attempting to apply critical thought in this case - the person who claims the subject is all so complex that math doesn't apply, or the person who is attempting to break it down to its base functions?
Critical thought also involves self reflection Mark - something you are severely lacking in this case.
>I'd be happy to talk about the criticism of Social Security, Hap.
Mark would be "happy" to talk about the criticism of Soc Sec - and yet he isn't. Why not? After all, a substantive criticism of the graphic was given in the very first comment, and expanded a little bit in my comment. Why isn't he talking about how Soc Sec's trust fund works, and how it interacts with government debt, if at all, for example?
>Make a logical, reasoned, and (fully) fact based analysis of it without any personal remarks, bias, or axes to grind. Don't leave out anything..a FULL analysis..except you could leave out the heading off at the pass comments (about time to accuse me of handwaving when you are the one actually doing it)
Maybe this is why he isn't talking about Soc Sec - Mark wants to pretend that the already made criticisms out of bounds because they aren't "logical, reasoned, and fully fact based, (etc etc.)" Notably absent from this declaration is just what it is about the criticisms that isn't logical, reasoned, or fully fact based. He just asserts that it is so. Another nonsensical aspect of this declaration - my comment pointed out exactly why his comment wasn't logical, reasoned, or fact based, and how it didn't address 6kings criticism, yet he ignores that; he also seemingly does not notice the rather glaring hypocrisy - Mark will only discuss criticism that meets his standards of logic, reason, and factual-ness, and yet his own comments do not seem to have to meet any such standard, as I pointed out, and Mark hasn't rebutted. None of this stopped me from pointing out why I think he is factually wrong - what is stopping Mark from doing the same? A final thing of note - exactly where does Mark think he has gained the authority to decide what constitutes logical, or reasoned, or factual, without explaining why he believes that? I'm a senior employee where I work, and I still have to explain my reasoning to people who have been on the job for 1 day. Yet Mark seems to think that such things are unnecessary. Why?
>Until offer this full analysis, your assertions that you are an impartial analyst are bullshit.
Note here that Mark asserts something that wasn't stated by me - that I am an impartial analyst. Also implicit in this statement is that one must be an impartial analyst to discuss a subject, and that not being impartial in some way renders an argument, by definition, invalid. This belief assumption has two problems - first, defining someone as "impartial" or not is pretty subjective - for example, I wouldn't consider Mark to be in any way shape or form impartial, nor, would I suspect, he consider me impartial. Since there is no truly impartial authority we can appeal to to get our "impartiality scores", does that mean it is impossible to talk about anything? Note that my belief that Mark isn't impartial hasn't stopped me from addressing his arguments. Why has it stopped him? Second, the partiality of a person (also known as bias) has nothing to do with whether a particular argument that person makes is true, valid, reasoned, or logical. Here is a discussion of it: http://silasreinagel.blogspot.com/2010/03/false-fallacy-argument-from-bias.html. I admit the first example made me laugh, because it's Mark to a T - he might have gotten the example from one of Mark's comments.
>6Kings made a small effort which I will grant him but his first paragraph loses all credibility when he called Democrats dumb.
Here, I think, we come to the source of Mark's problem. Mark seems to believe that if he encounters language he does not like, it automatically renders any argument made in close (or far, I don't think he cares) proximity to said language null and void, regardless of the merits of the argument that was made. In other words, if I write a paragraph making very specific claims about how Soc Sec works, and then my last sentence says "And Mark is a moron.", Mark seems to believe that the last sentence invalidates everything that came before it, such that he doesn't even have to try to explain why my claims might be wrong. Why does Mark seem to think that?
>The same goes for Guard Duck who, like you, wants to make this all about me. It's not about me. It's about Social Security.
Here we see one of those facepalm assertions that Mark occasionally makes, due it to being so blatantly false that it is very difficult to believe he isn't being deliberately dishonest. He says that we are trying to make this all about him, when every single comment he has made in this thread has been about anything but the relevant topic, Soc Sec's trust fund - he's mostly talked about us. The first paragraph he wrote in this thread, for example, was very specifically about us, not about Soc Sec. Now, all of a sudden, further down the thread, he professes bewilderment that Soc Sec isn't the only topic under discussion. Note also the howler in the final sentence: "It's about Social Security." Ok, so why isn't Mark talking about Social Security? Its trust fund? Its interaction with government debt?
>I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to wriggle out of critical discussion regarding Social Security, GD. By setting the parameters as you did above, we're heading down the path of confirmation bias.
And here we see some monumental hubris. Mark, the person who has avoided saying anything substantive about Soc Sec for this entire comment thread, is trying to lecture other people about attempting to "wriggle out" of critical discussion about Soc Sec, somehow not noticing his own glaring lack of discussion about the subject. Further, he accuses GD of "heading down the path of confirmation bias", but doesn't explain how or why he thinks GD is doing that. He just asserts it.
>For example, if he had started with the two different measures of the deficit, we might have been able to look at SS in a critical way.
Note that Mark doesn't tell us what those two different measures of the deficit are, or explain why that might be relevant to Soc Sec and its trust fund, so that we can have an informed discussion about whether those measures are relevant or important, as he seems to believe they are. He just asserts it to be so.
>For you, you are purposefully leaving out key ingredients in how the system is set up.
Note that Mark doesn't tell us which key ingredients these are, or why he thinks it is important to not leave them out, so that we can have an informed discussion about whether those ingredients are relevant or important, as he seems to believe they are. He just asserts it to be so.
Finally - Mark seems to have trouble with the notion that the way that Soc Sec works is a matter of fact - facts that can be perceived, understood, and argued about by someone regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, and regardless of whether they believe Soc Sec is a good idea or not. Yet it is these very facts that Mark seems to be most unwilling to talk about. Why is that?
GD, my problem with you is that you are framing the argument in such a way that it will lead us to the conclusion that you desire. I'd rather have a discussion that leads us to unbiased and fair analysis. If you can do that, great. Thus far, you are doing the bully thing again and it really is quite childish.
Hap, I suggest you take a break from posting here and go spend some time with live people. It will do you some good.
Now Ming here is heading more in the direction that is substantive. It's a generally honest statement and I agree with some of it. I disagree, however, with the characterization of this statement
Lastly, as others have pointed out, there is no "surplus" except on paper.
Some basic facts:
• Social Security is required by law to be self-financing • Payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments regularly until 2010 • This generated a surplus of $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust Funds • There is now a net shortfall which is expected to deplete the surplus by 2037 • Treasury borrowed from the surplus in the Trust Funds to pay for other programs • The government is now having to borrow money to pay its Social Security obligations
So, yes, there was a surplus that has been growing for the last 25 years and it was designed that way to withstand the baby boomer withdrawal time deficits.
Consider this: suppose the Treasury had borrowed money from Guard Duck (instead of the surplus in Social Security) to make up for the deficit (in fact, this is the case if he owns government bonds). Would Guard Duck then be "contributing to the deficit" now that the government is borrowing money to pay him back.
I'd also urge you to consider the difference between the unified budget and the on budget budget.
If by framing the argument you mean trying to talk about numbers using reality based measures rather than fantasy bookkeeping, then yes I am.
If by bully thing you mean insisting that you accept addition and subtraction calculations when discussing something that's base operation is addition and subtraction, then yes I am.
>Hap, I suggest you take a break from posting here and go spend some time with live people. It will do you some good.
Don't worry - it really doesn't take much time to unpack all your language - all the hidden assumptions, the pretenses to authority, the misleading or false statements, and the blind assertions. It's just kind of ugly when your words get translated to plain english, isn't it? Regardless, it's good that you finally started talking about Soc Sec in your last comment. It only took you 40 comments to do so. Unfortunately, you're still ignoring the basic points that were made upthread about the trust fund. Namely:
Does it make sense to treat the trust fund as a pile of real economic assets that can be drawn down to pay SS benefits? As pointed out waaay upthread, the OMB stated quite clearly that the trust fund is nothing more than an accounting device. Were they lying? Wrong? How or why? Also the point made upthread - if a law was passed that made the trust fund not exist, and made it so that shortfalls came directly out of the general fund, what would change about the amount of money the government must raise to meet its obligations? (Hint: nothing.) If you agree that the answer is nothing, then why is the trust fund or surplus-that-was-spent-as-soon-as-it-was-gotten even worth mentioning? If you don't agree, then explain why.
>Consider this: suppose the Treasury had borrowed money from Guard Duck (instead of the surplus in Social Security) to make up for the deficit (in fact, this is the case if he owns government bonds). Would Guard Duck then be "contributing to the deficit" now that the government is borrowing money to pay him back.
No, GD would not be contributing to the deficit because he is not part of the federal government, unlike SS. (Very poor comparison btw.) Further: GD does not possess taxing or money printing authority, unlike SS which directly possesses taxing authority, and indirectly possesses money printing authority. Further: any debt GD takes on would be voluntarily taken on by purchasing Treasury bonds on the open market. SS does not purchase Treasury bonds on the open market, nor does it exist as a separate entity that can choose whether or not to purchase bonds - it is part of the federal government, and subject to its whims. You seem to want to act as if SS is some separate, unrelated entity.
Now - are you going to respond to actual points that were made, or are you going to make more logically unsupported assertions?
It would have been a lot sooner if you were capable of critical thought and analysis and didn't have an ax to grind against me or Social Security. You're biased, Hap. Admit it and move on.
GD would not be contributing to the deficit because he is not part of the federal government, unlike SS. (Very poor comparison btw.)
Yet, under your logic, he would be, regardless of whether or not he was a part of the government, because they were paying him interest on debt just as they are to SS.
Of course, this is where your bias comes into play. It's all the .GOV so it must all be the same, right? Except, by law, it's not and the fact that you aren't admitting this means that you aren't being honest.
Now - are you going to respond to actual points that were made, or are you going to make more logically unsupported assertions?
Saying that Social Security will add to the deficit in any year in which its benefit payments exceed its tax collections (and even if the fund still has a surplus due to the interest it collects on the government bonds it holds) is like saying as soon as a car pulls away from the gas station it uses more gas than it takes in and adds to the "gas deficit" despite the full tank of gas just acquired. To continue this analogy in terms of yourself and the others you should then howl that this cannot continue and all traffic will eventually come to a full stop.
How much gasoline consumed compared to how much is in the tank is only relevant to how many effective tank fulls are stored in the SS investment inventory and the rate of draw down, none of which affects the on-budget deficit or surplus.
There's a hidden ideology behind what you are saying that is designed to characterize SS as welfare funded by all taxpayers rather than the self funded insurance it is.
Suppose SS was an insurance company receiving premiums (ss taxes), holding interest paying assets ( US treasury bonds) and paying settlements (SS benefits). Suppose settlement payments exceeded premiums, the difference coming from interest on the US treasury bonds. Would we then claim that the insurance company cash flow is raising the US deficit? I don't think so. To me this is easier to understand than citing two government budgets that seem contrived to non accountants.
Alan, that's a better example than the one I used above with GD. And I agree with you about the two different budgets to a certain extent. But remember that Social Security is its own entity under law so that's why there is a distinction.
Social Security has always been a self funded off budget program. The SS tax is the oft mentioned flat tax except that it phases out above $105K. There is no fund that is as solvent as the SS fund and it has in excess of a 2 trillion dollar surplus. This is not a smoke and mirrors surplus but is one backed by treasury bills and notes just like China and Saudi Arabia who are not worried about being repaid either.
SS was designed to be a worker/employer self funding retirement annuity. The Reagan 80's "reform" allowed Congress to withdraw the "surplus" & substitute Treasury IOUs.
The last tax-breaks-4-the-rich "deal" in the lame duck session reduced the payroll deductions & set up the fund to draw funds from general revenues to make up the difference ... right wing budget hacks have been trying to undercut SS since the 30's ... they succeeded in December and now hail the demise of SS because it increases the deficit ... which is doesn't ... unless you view it through the eyes of those who deny the existence of government & are therefore unable to govern.
>It would have been a lot sooner if you were capable of critical thought and analysis and didn't have an ax to grind against me or Social Security. You're biased, Hap. Admit it and move on.
Note that Mark again attempts to reserve for himself the right to judge what constitutes critical thought and analysis. From where does he think he has earned that right?
Regarding bias, you didn't read what I said above about impartiality, bias, and their relationship to making an argument, did you. I am most certainly biased. So are you. So is everyone, to one degree or another. Someones bias does not make their argument automatically incorrect - errors of logic, fact, or reasoning are what makes arguments wrong. That's why I've been pointing out that you focus obsessively on things that have nothing to do with the argument. I understand that you focus on things like bias to try to avoid talking substantively about a subject, but I suspect that even you, somewhere, realizes that you're just trying to avoid subjects you don't want to talk about.
>Yet, under your logic, he would be
No. Two entities versus one. (Alan's example is a lot better than mine so I won't bother explaining further.)
>It's all the .GOV so it must all be the same, right?
For the purposes of how much it costs to pay for government, yes. That is the whole point. That's why I have been giving you thought experiments about a world where the trust fund doesn't exist. It doesn't change the fiscal reality of where and how much money the gov has to raise one bit.
>and even if the fund still has a surplus due to the interest it collects on the government bonds it holds
Lance: where does the money for that interest come from? Who collects it? I confess I don't understand the rest of your analogy.
>But remember that Social Security is its own entity under law so that's why there is a distinction.
Please cite the law. I suspect "its own entity" means something quite different to me that it does to you, especially with respect to how SS is funded.
>This is not a smoke and mirrors surplus but is one backed by treasury bills and notes just like China and Saudi Arabia who are not worried about being repaid either.
This is false. The treasury bills and notes in the SS trust fund are not publically traded, like the ones that China and Saudi Arabia has. You're also making the same mistake that Mark did - the issue is not whether the treasury bonds are "safe", its whether the redemption of those bonds adds to the deficit/debt, or whether it makes sense to view that 2.7 trillion dollars of already spent money as an actual economic asset, or just a bookkeeping device. I ask you to imagine, like I asked Mark, and he has of course ignored, what would happen if the trust fund were to disappear overnight and the government simply paid SS shortfalls out of its general budget. Would the government suddenly be 2.7 trillion dollars poorer, and have to collect 2.7 trillion more dollars than it otherwise would have had to? I've asked Mark this question multiple times - why won't he answer it?
Hey Mark, I found this blog when I did search on Social Security if that answers your question. You have some real cretins hanging around here. Too bad.
I can 't speak for Mark but your question is really dumb, Haplo9. The trust fund was purposefully set up to be a separate entity because of the nature of the program. It's funded by payroll taxes, not income tax so it's not going to be put in the general budget but I suspect you know that and are simply leading the witness. You ask questions to lead to the conclusion you want which, looking back, Mark noted above. That's why he doesn't answer. You're trying to convince him of a something that isn't honest.
The only addition to the deficit caused by Social Security is the $120bn credit for this one-year payroll tax holiday; otherwise, the program is required by law to be self-financing. That law (and all other facts related to Social Security) can be found here.
http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp
I hope that answers Haplo9's question. Sorry if I overstepped the site administrator here but I can't stand trolls.
The only reason the Trust Fund has to begin selling its bonds to cover its payouts is because its massive surplus has been depleted by Congress spending the money on other programs. And that's not the same as adding to the deficit, anyway; it's just redistributing it to whomever eventually buys the bonds. Now, that's not to say that Social Security isn't in financial trouble, but it still has 26 years to go before the service on the debts owed to it run out. It can be financed beyond that point by increases to the payroll tax, which, again, will not add to the general fund deficit.
Wow - confusion about how SS works is pretty rampant. These aren't difficult concepts people. Try to wrap your heads around them.
>I can't speak for Mark but your question is really dumb, Haplo9.
So.. does that mean you won't answer it? I mean, it's a simple question, and it's purpose is to make clear whether the trust fund has economic value or not. Come on Glenn, be a big boy!
>The trust fund was purposefully set up to be a separate entity because of the nature of the program.
Separate from what? The federal government? I hope that isn't what you mean, because the obvious question that comes from that is why is the SS trust fund maintained by the US Treasury?
>It's funded by payroll taxes, not income tax so it's not going to be put in the general budget but I suspect you know that and are simply leading the witness.
Glenn - sorry, but that is simply not true. The trust fund is not funded by payroll taxes at all, because payroll taxes are spent immediately after they are collected - either on SS benefits or by Congress which takes any surplus and spends it. Then, when bonds in the trust fund are redeemed, the federal government raises money to pay them like any other debt - it raises taxes, borrows money, or prints money. So yes - income taxes are one of the things that "fund" the trust fund. I put "fund" in quotes because the word implies that the trust fund contains real economic assets, which is something I am disputing.
D Nichols: >the program is required by law to be self-financing.
Er.. So? Does the existence of a law mean that it is in reality self financing?
>I hope that answers Haplo9's question.
Not particularly - did you have a location in mind on that site? It's pretty big. How about answering it yourself? It's not a hard question, is it? Btw - do you agree with this, from that site:
The Clinton administration's 2000 budget proposal states that the Social Security Trust Fund does
not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.[258]
>The only reason the Trust Fund has to begin selling its bonds to cover its payouts is because its massive surplus has been depleted by Congress spending the money on other programs.
Correct - that Congress which is part of the federal government, of which SS is also a part of.
>And that's not the same as adding to the deficit, anyway; it's just redistributing it to whomever eventually buys the bonds.
This doesn't make sense. You do realize that SS bonds are special bonds, that can only be sold back to the federal government, and no one else.. right? In other words, its exactly the same as adding to the deficit.
Just ... wow. I guess the Federal government can both spend the money and save the money all at once. Apparently all is possible through the magical unicorn powers of government. "Away, base demons of accounting! You shall have no hold here upon my true believers! Begone, foul math, and trouble my people no more!"
There's a hidden ideology behind what you are saying that is designed to characterize SS as welfare funded by all taxpayers rather than the self funded insurance it is.
My version of the summary thus far: -Mark and co seem to recognize that redeeming SS bonds requires the federal government to raise taxes, borrow money, or print money. -Mark and co don't seem to be willing to answer the question directly, but I think they do seem to grudgingly recognize that if the trust fund disappeared and the government paid benefit differences out of its general fund, the net impact on the goverments books would be zero. -There are some relatively minor points of confusion - some people seem unaware that SS must buy US treasuries with any surplus it has, whereas an independent entity could choose not to. Also unclear to some people is that the bonds SS buys are not available to the public or to other countries, like normal US treasuries are. -The source of the disagreement seems to be whether or not SS (and its trust funds) can be considered to be the same as the federal government for accounting purposes. They seem to want to consider SS as a separate entity, like, say, Canada. In this scenario, if Canada owned a bunch of US Treasuries, it would be accurate to say that "Canada has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or national debut.", since they voluntarily loaned us money by buying bonds. It would also be accurate to say that Canada has a "trust fund" made up of US Treasuries, which have real economic value that can be drawn down when needed, assuming the US can pay. If, however, SS is the same as the federal government for the purposes of accounting, then this distinction is meaningless, since its just one part of the government owing another part of the government: net difference = 0.
Obviously, I think the claim that SS is distinct from the federal government is groundless - SS is a creation of Congress, is required by law to give all surpluses to the US Treasury, and uses the federal government's taxing authority to collect payroll taxes, just to name a few obvious reasons.
So at this point, I'm just waiting to see if Mark and co can come up with a coherent reason why it makes sense to view SS as separate from the federal gov.
I've asked Mark this question multiple times - why won't he answer it?
Because I don't want to play your games, Hap. You've framed the question in such a way that any answer works to your benefit. Or, if I don't answer, you can squawk about how I'm stupid or hiding something. There's no critical thinking involved in that at all-it's bullying and games which is about all you have.
It's odd that you always have to ask questions of me and can't seem to ever simply state your views and support them with evidence. I wonder why that is the case.
Odder still is the long comments you leave as if you are hoping to convince someone of...something. There's only a few hundred people that read this blog on a daily basis and this far down in comments, it's only us and a few strays here and there. Those couple that do post are then bullied by you and the other TSM commenters in the hopes of...what exactly? Winning? Winning what?
Whatever it is, it has to be important to you to write so much on someone else's blog...a blog that is very little known and could honestly not even be rated 5th rate. I'd say that's a pretty sad statement on where your life is if you are spending that much time on here. I probably spend too much time on here but it's my blog so at least I have an excuse, albeit a weak one.
I wonder what you guys would do if there ever was a regular group of critical thinkers that posted here to counter your chest thumping, emotional outbursts. If this thread is any indication, you'd probably get even worse. As always, if you want to stop grinding that ax on SS and analyze critically, I'd be open to a discussion. Otherwise, plan on me calling you on your bullshit.
Haplo8, I was thinking of the financial status section, the popular perception section, and the impact on the national debt sections. Your comments here show you to most verbose so that's why I linked such a large amount of information. Looking back on this thread, I can see that if you own a small business, it's no wonder you take the view that you do on Social Security. The sections above directly contradict some of what you assert. That doesn't mean you are entirely wrong. Just that you are not telling the whole story.
I'm so surprised to find that Mark is back to talking about anything other than SS! So Mark, I take it your answer to this:
Note that Mark again attempts to reserve for himself the right to judge what constitutes critical thought and analysis. From where does he think he has earned that right?
is "because I say so"? Nothing changes though, huh Mark? Just like for the last 5 years or so, asking you to explain the reasoning behind your claims is some kind of personal affront, or a gross task that you don't want to lower yourself to.
>It's odd that you always have to ask questions of me and can't seem to ever simply state your views and support them with evidence. I wonder why that is the case.
Really? I would have thought it was quite obvious that my view is that: -SS does contribute to our deficit and national debt. -SS does not have a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus, at least not one that has any economic value.
You know, the claim that was made in the very first comment. Aside from deconstructing your nonstop attempts to smokescreen and handwave, everything i've been arguing has been in support of those two points. What did you think was going on?
>Those couple that do post are then bullied by you and the other TSM commenters in the hopes of...what exactly? Winning? Winning what?
We've been all through this before. How do you bully someone on the internet? Yes, I argue forcefully. Horrors. As to my purpose, I've told you this before too. If I'm wrong on SS, I want to know why I'm wrong so that.. get ready for it.. I can not be wrong anymore. Insane, isn't it? Also insane - when someone else says "you're wrong" with no other explanation or reason, my response isn't going to be "oh, ok", it's going to be "um, care to explain that a bit further?" You are of course #1 in this department, with your repetition of "you're not thinking critically" followed by a refusal to explain why. It still amazes me that you believe that you're making an argument when you do that.
>I wonder what you guys would do if there ever was a regular group of critical thinkers that posted here to counter your chest thumping, emotional outbursts.
See but Mark, from my standpoint, you are the person least capable of critical thought here, and by a country mile. Where does that leave us? You don't think I can think critically, I don't think you can think critically. What is to be done? Hey, I have an idea. You can stop whining about critical thought, stop acting like you are a judge of it (note that I don't - ever wondered why?), and explain why you think the things I say are wrong, or flawed, or what about them is lacking in critical thought. Then I can respond with my own points about the points you made. It's sort of a point - counterpoint thing. They even have a name for this process - it's called "argument." You rarely do this, but even someone as close minded as you can learn.. maybe..
I'm touched by your concern for how I spend my time. Well, aside from the implication that I'm a loser who spends too much time on your site, that isn't very touching. Actually, it's a rather transparent way to avoid talking about the subject, don't you think?
>The sections above directly contradict some of what you assert. That doesn't mean you are entirely wrong. Just that you are not telling the whole story.
Nichols. Seriously - what is the deal with people on this site? Why is so hard for you to say *what* contradicts some of what I asserted? Why not tell *what* part of the story I'm missing, and why you think it is important? (This is why people are musing about you being Mark's sockpuppet - you have the same "declaration without explanation" tendency that he has.) Anyway, I read through the three sections you mention, and nothing stands out. I can see a number of things that simply presume the things I am disputing, such as items that list the value of the trust fund, whereas I am disputing that the trust fund has any meaningful economic value. Is it your contention that such things are beyond the realm of dispute or argument?
>Hey Mark, I found this blog when I did search on Social Security if that answers your question.
Btw - as I happen to be in the industry, would you care to explain just how you did this search? Mark's blog isn't nearly linked to often enough to show up highly ranked on search engines like google or bing for you to have gotten to it from there. Even if you search for "Social Security Markadelphia" you get hits from all over his website, as SS has been a fairly common topic. Just how did you end up on this comment thread?
(At first I didn't bother with the sockpuppet hypothesis because its hard to prove without ip logs. But then I thought about how it would not be easy to just randomly land on a small site like Mark's.)
I'm so surprised to find that Mark is back to talking about anything other than SS!
Heading me off at the pass again, eh, Hap? I'd be happy to talk about Social Security. If only you could stop talking about me.
-SS does contribute to our deficit and national debt. -SS does not have a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus, at least not one that has any economic value.
Neither one of these statements is true as has been shown to you by the comments in this thread. In regards to the latter, you are essentially saying that US Treasury Bonds have no economic value. Under law, they must be paid back. I know you don't "believe" this because of your feelings about the government but that is what is true in reality.
Further, from the facts link provided by D Nichols
* The Social Security program has an independent budget that is separate from the rest of the federal government.
* When the Social Security program collects more in taxes than it spends, it generates surplus money. By law, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with surplus money is loan it to the U.S. government
Again, in a different way, because we seem to have trouble understanding.
* When Social Security's sources of income exceed its expenses, the resultant surpluses must be loaned to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. By law, the Treasury must pay this money back to the Social Security program with interest.
* No money has been taken from the Social Security program.[200] [201] By law, Social Security surpluses must be loaned to the federal government,[202] [203] which is a requirement that was established in the original Social Security Act of 1935.[204] [205] [206] [207] The federal government is legally required to pay back this money to the Social Security program with interest,[208] and it has never failed to do so.[209] [210]
*The national debt is not paid for with Social Security taxes but with money from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury,[244] [245] [246] which comes from income taxes (66%), corporate income taxes (23%), excise taxes (5%), and other miscellaneous taxes (6%) [percentages current as of 2006].[247]
So, you see, Social Security does not contribute to the on budget deficit because it can only spend money that it collects from the designated payroll tax or from the investment of past surpluses.
If I'm wrong on SS, I want to know why I'm wrong so that.. get ready for it.. I can not be wrong anymore.
Great. See the above facts and admit that you are wrong.
I would have chosen the same bullet points that Mark chose so that's fine with me. It wasn't hard for me to point them out. I just thought that since you had written so much on here that you would want to be thorough in examining all the facts. This can be a very convoluted topic so it's important to see it from all angles.
>Neither one of these statements is true as has been shown to you by the comments in this thread.
Lol. Had to laugh on that one. Which comments would those be? The ones where you talked about anything but SS?
>In regards to the latter, you are essentially saying that US Treasury Bonds have no economic value. Under law, they must be paid back.
No, I'm saying that the Treasury Bonds owned by SS (a part of the federal governemnt) have no economic value, becaues the entity that makes good on those bonds (the federal government) is the same entity that owns those bonds (SS, which is part of the federal government.) If those bonds didn't exist, the net change to the governments books would be zero. Why do you keep acting as if this distinction is unimportant?
If a department in a corporation lends money to a different department, the lendee spends the loan, and the lender keeps a note saying I'm owed xxx dollars, does that note have economic value? No, right? Then why do you think that in the case of the government, the answer is yes? I've yet to see any reasoning that explains that.
Anyway since you think that the cited bits from the justfacts site support your case, what do you think this one means, from the 'Debt to be Paid' section:
The Clinton administration's 2000 budget proposal states that the Social Security Trust Fund does not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.[258]
"not consist of real economic assets"
Weird, huh? That sounds awfully similar to what I'm saying, doesn't it? Is the OMB wrong?
Anyway, to the parts you and Nichols linked:
Why do you think that having an "independent" budget is meaningful here? Are you thinking that the word "independent" somehow means that SS is an entirely separate entity from the federal government? As separate as, say, Cananda, to refer to the example I gave upthread?
I think this notion of SS as "independent" of the federal government is what is the sticking point here. Like this:
>When Social Security's sources of income exceed its expenses, the resultant surpluses must be loaned
Again, you're not addressing the key point. How and why is it economically meaningful for the federal government to loan money to itself?
>The federal government is legally required to pay back this money to the Social Security program with interest,[208] and it has never failed to do so.
I don't follow why you think this is relevant. Yes, the federal government makes up any difference for SS by raising taxes, borrowing, or printing money. It's not likely to fail to do so. That has nothing to do with whether making up that difference contributes to the deficit/debt. (Which it clearly does.)
>So, you see, Social Security does not contribute to the on budget deficit because it can only spend money that it collects from the designated payroll tax
Correct, as it were. SS spending of collected payroll taxes does not contribute to the deficit.
> or from the investment of past surpluses.
And here we part ways, with the usual sorts of questions. Where does the interest on these "investments" come from, if not from debt/deficit spending? How can a single entity (the federal government) loan money to itself, then consider that loan to be an asset?
>Great. See the above facts and admit that you are wrong.
Sorry Mark. You don't get off that easy. I'm looking for some reasoning around those facts to explain why they make me wrong. You don't seem willing to provide it yet. (Yes, I know, this response will likely cause you to do more whining about playing games, or trying to win the argument, or somesuch. I suspect that you are very unfamiliar with the idea of having to explain your reasoning, and so asking you for that reasoning comes across as unreasonable. Where I'm from, it's a requirement.) Clearly, you don't include yourself as one who wants to figure out if you're wrong about SS. :) Have you ever considered that you might be confused about how SS works?
You did pretty well until the end, there, Hap and then you did the pivot to me to avoid discussing your ideological blockage. I'm still holding out hope that someday you can make an argument without including me as part of the "supporting evidence."
If you assert that Social Security contributes to the debt and deficit, then it must follow that anyone or any entity that earns interest from the US bonds also contributes to the debt and deficit.
And to say that the T bonds have no cash value makes no sense because (as I mentioned above), the government has never failed to do so (with interest). People cash out T bonds all the time and they convert them into cash. And you're saying they don't have value? It's here where I think that Clinton Administration's report doesn't get it exactly right. There's money constantly flowing in to SS and it has no cash value?
It also doesn't recognize the unique nature of SS-a self funded entity that is paid for by a separate tax than an income tax. Income taxes, of course, do go to interest on the debt.
The whole knock on SS seems unfair when you consider this simple analogy that my wife (an accountant) shared with me. Let's say that she has 200 dollars but only needs 150 for the month. I need the extra 50 so she loans it to me with interest. The next month comes by and she has 200 but needs 250+ the 50 cents interest she charged me. I don't have it so I borrow 50.50 to pay her back. She's now contributing to my deficit?
>I'm still holding out hope that someday you can make an argument without including me as part of the "supporting evidence."
Heal theyself bril. Read the first paragraph of your first comment (and that's just the start) and let me know how that's all about SS facts and evidence instead of making it about me (us.)
>She's now contributing to my deficit?
No - not the way you described it, because you are treating you and your wife as separate entities. Seen that way, it doesn't make much sense to say that she is contributing to your deficit. However, change the analogy a bit - is she contributing to your family deficit? Yes she is. (The same separate/the same reasoning applies to a note that records that loan. If you are separate entities, a note has economic value, if you aren't, it doesn't because the family has to come up with the difference somewhere.) And that's what this entire disagreement boils down to. Does it make sense to treat SS as a separate entity from the federal government or does it not? Near as I can tell, you find this:
>It also doesn't recognize the unique nature of SS-a self funded entity that is paid for by a separate tax than an income tax.
sufficient to conclude that SS is a separate entity. I don't find that very convincing. SS and the federal government are utterly intertwined: - SS is a creation of Congress, and Congress can change SS at any time, for any reason. - From where does SS get its power to tax? The federal government's power to tax, of course. - What kind of "separate entity" is required (by law) to give its surpluses to the federal government? Do you think a non-government entity could be subject to that kind of law, like a private corporation? - What kind of "separate entity" has its very own type of T bond? As I keep pointing out to you, SS bonds are not publically traded, and are available only to SS. They are not the same as normal T bonds.
>It's here where I think that Clinton Administration's report doesn't get it exactly right. There's money constantly flowing in to SS and it has no cash value?
This statement doesn't make sense. The Clinton admin report isn't saying the money flowing into SS has no value, it's saying that the bonds held in SS have no economic value. Every single penny that SS collects is immediately spent by the federal government, either by the SS piece of it or by the Treasury piece of it. Thus, saying that one piece of the federal government owes money to another piece is immaterial to how much money the federal government has to collect to cover its obligations.
If China loans a dollar to the US one year and is paid back the next. Is the US responsible for paying China's bills on the third year?
Alternatively in the case of SS - If SS 'loans' a dollar to the treasury one year and is 'paid' back the next - the treasury is still responsible for SS's shortfalls on the third year.
This responsibility for the others liabilities puts false the claim that the two are separate entities. They are not. Any 'loans' betwixt the two are simply internal bookkeeping and cannot be claimed as some sort of 'trust fund' or 'asset'.
How is my first comment in any way untrue? You don't like government social programs, right? If you do, then I apologize and I am wrong in making that comment.
Your recent comments and your analogy in a previous one about different departments in a corporation made me think about the time I worked for Rockwell International. Each division had its own budget and each department within each division had its own budget. Sometimes, divisions and departments would borrow from each other and the ones with the surplus (the one I was in) was always courted.
If other departments were spending more than they were taking in and were borrowing from us to make it up, that does not mean that we were contributing to the deficit. THEY were. In addition, I can assure that the money the went came in and went out of our department (and in between the various divisions and departments) had economic value. I remember a co-worker complaining a few times of how it didn't matter anyway because it was all "funny money." He got his ass chewed pretty badly soon after that.
Regardless of what you think of any of the points I've made, I can see why you would consider it all to be a part of one entity if you were looking at it from a unified budget point of view. That's not how the government looks at it nor is it the exact law of SS but if you see it as all one thing, then I think it would be more fair to say that Congress is contributing to the deficit by approving continued spending in X area and Y area.
The question about the nature of the unique T bond for SS brings with it many more questions. It's always redeemed for cash to be paid (with interest) to SS. Yet, why is it special only to SS? Does that make it more valuable or less valuable? Or something else?
It's not a matter of whether it is true or not. (And it is isn't true, but I'm obviously not as enthusiastic about gov programs as you are.) 1. It is unrelated to SS and how SS works in any way, shape or form. 2. It is a subjective assessment of my bias/impartiality - as pointed out above, those things have nothing to do with whether a particular argument is true/false, or valid/invalid. In other words - stick with the argument and stop complaining about your perception of other peoples bias. 3. If your perception of my bias being relevant to the argument is fair game, then my perception of your bias is relevant to the argument too. Do you think that is likely to get anywhere when discussing a subject? ("You're a government-phobe! You're a government-phile!")
>Yet, why is it special only to SS? Does that make it more valuable or less valuable? Or something else?
I of course would argue that there is no value because the trust fund has no economic value. But the more relevant point is that because they are different than normal T bonds, they cannot be sold on the open market, like regular T bonds can. So SS can't raise money on the open market with those bonds, like they could with normal T bonds. They are the equivilent of a bookeeping note that says I paid you x dollars on x date. So I offer them as evidence that a. the trust fund has no economic value and b. SS is not meaningfully separate from the federal govt.
>were borrowing from us to make it up, that does not mean that we were contributing to the deficit. THEY were
I can sort of agree that from one perspective, Congress is the more accurate entity to blame than SS. But in that same sense, Congress is to blame for everything that isn't going well with the fed, because it's ultimately their decision. In this case, it's probably most accurate to say that the redeeming of SS's bonds is contributing to the deficit as of 2010 Whether you consider that to be SS's "fault" or not is kind of semantics at that point.
As to your Rockwell example - I would ream that guy's ass out too, because even if its in-house money, it shows up on Rockwell's books as a net debit to the company once it is spent, does it not? And the note that one department had saying it owed money to another - do you think that was listed as an asset on Rockwell's books?
A final note, which this discussion jogged my memory of. It is a time honored fraudulent scheme in the corporate world to try to obscure debts and/or assets in order to make a company look worse or better than it really is. You create a new company (usually known as a Special purpose entity), make it look separate from the parent, then transfer debts to that new company, making the parent look (falsely) golden. One of the more prominent ones of late? Enron. I say this not as a claim that the federal government is trying to do some Enron type of thing, but to point out that this notion of "are two entities separate or not" is actually a pretty important one when it comes to bookkeeping.
Nope, you're just a H8ER! H8ER!! H8ER!! And a bigot, and a racist, and a sucker of corporate cock, so that prooves you're wrong. You don't beleive in the existence of governnement, that's all there is toit.
(And it is isn't true, but I'm obviously not as enthusiastic about gov programs as you are.)
Fair enough. Then I'm wrong and I apologize. If you support some government social programs, then I'd be interested to hear about which ones and why.
So I offer them as evidence that a. the trust fund has no economic value and b.
But they are redeemed for cash which then goes out to SS participants so they do have value.
In this case, it's probably most accurate to say that the redeeming of SS's bonds is contributing to the deficit as of 2010 Whether you consider that to be SS's "fault" or not is kind of semantics at that point.
Well, that is how the law was written so as not to allow "profit," if you will. Of course, there is some and that is spent on other things.
Of course, this goes to the issue of spending and where the main fault line lies between folks like me and folks like you. Our government is always going to spend a lot of money and is likely to spend more whomever wins the White House this fall. Why? Short answer: our economy.
do you think that was listed as an asset on Rockwell's books?
It was listed as an asset to the division that I worked in and what they showed the board and their stockholders to illustrate how well they were doing. Obviously, they talked it up as being "in surplus" cash wise. Part of this was done to stimulate competition between divisions as to who could do a better job with their finances.
77 comments:
Now there is no doubt that it has helped alleviate poverty for many people and probably will for the foreseeable future. But the first line item is false as is the last item which is nothing but bonds or a loan to the government.
From John Hawkins:
After you pay your social security taxes the government takes the money and spends it. Yes you heard me correctly, they spend it. They spend it on debt reduction, welfare, the military, government salaries, and all the other things the government spends your money on.
Now you’re probably thinking “Wait a second Hawkins, what do you mean we spend it? If we spend that money, how can there be a trust fund?” It’s an accounting trick. After the money is spent, the government creates non-negotiable bonds for the same amount that’s spent. Now you’re probably thinking “There you go Hawkins, the money is in bonds.”
But what is a bond? It’s basically a loan. Typically, you loan the government your money and they pay it back with interest after a period of time. In this case, the money has already been spent and government is loaning itself money and paying it back with interest after a period of time. Now here’s the kicker. How does the government pay these bonds back? With tax money.
It's very significant that in the next 10 years, Social Security will add a half-trillion dollars to the deficit. Social Security would be a good place to start when dealing with these mandatory entitlement programs that are 57 percent of our budget.
- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
From NPR
At a recent Senate Budget Committee hearing on the nation's economic outlook, Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) noted there's been a sea change in Social Security's finances.
"My staff informs me under the new report, Social Security has gone permanently cash negative now. Is that the case?" he asked.
"Yes, that's right," came the response from Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf, whose agency prepared the report.
Conrad added that the time had finally come for the money Social Security has lent the federal government to be paid back.
"How's it going to be paid back? It's going to be paid back by the other general expenditure of the federal government having to be reduced to make way for the payments that we're going to have to make on those bonds," he said.
In other words, it is adding to the deficit ever since 2010 when it went cash negative. There is no cash in the system, it is all bonds that the government has to pay back plus interest.
And the outlook when this 'surplus' is gone is really bad. In present value terms for sustainability, the government would have to invest 8.6 trillion right now at make 2.9% above inflation to meet its needs. That is not possible.
But then you have shining examples of stupid like Harry Reid (D for Dumb) saying: Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt, and as I've said before, people should leave Social Security alone.. Unfortuately idiot, we can't leave it alone, it needs fixing or we dig ourselves into oblivion.
This could mean people have to retire later than they’re planning to. Some of our senior citizens may not have as much income as they previously thought. Taxes may have to be raised significantly much sooner than we’d anticipated. When the politicians tell you that we won’t have to deal with these decisions anytime soon because of the trust fund, remember where the money is really going to come from…your pocket.
One way or another this will get fixed. Hopefully planned rather than full on failure.
Who was it that talked about repeating a lie often enough?
Impressive. You've managed to learn not a single thing about Soc Sec in all the arguments we've had about it. You still make the same basic error about its trust fund.
Why are we even discussing this?
Medicare costs are rising at 9+% annually. A little math says that costs are doubling about every 7 years or so. If you are 55, your benefits will not change. (According to Ryan's plan, or Obama's for that matter) A 55-year old's approximate life expectancy is 30 more years.
Starting from today ($820 billion):
$1,640 billion in seven years
$3,280 billion in fourteen
$6,560 billion in twenty-one
$13,120 billion in twenty-eight
That's $13 trillion dollars.
The entire Federal Budget today is $3.8 trillion and, we're only taxing about $2.6 trillion -- so that, in fact, is all we have to spend.
If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
You are arguing something that is already decided. Math (plus a calendar) has come to a conclusion.
The problem here, folks, is that you are incapable of looking at Social Security without bias. You don't like government social programs so you have your version of what the program is and what will happen to it. Because I don't accept your version as reality, then I must be making "basic errors." In many ways, the manner in which you talk about this subject is illustrative of how you talk about everything else...with severe ideological blockage.
So, let's take a look at a few basic facts.
http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/fact_sheets/StraightFactsSocialSecurity-Sep09.pdf
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/lr6f8.html
The government does not borrow money to pay for the program nor does it add to the debt. It is a self sustaining program that is paid for by payroll taxes. It is not going broke but does need reinforcement for the future and by that I mean the year 2023.
Take a look at this reinforcement solution to Social Security.
http://www.epi.org/publication/social_security_is_sustainable/
If you can't get past the basic facts of these links for whatever reason, discussion is pointless although maybe I am expecting too much. Perhaps we can start with a small admittance that US Treasury Bonds are the safest investment in the world.
The problem here, folks, is that you are incapable of looking at Social Security without bias.
Sure M is everyone ELSE that is 100% wrong.
Saw this and thought of you.
Well, both sides are exactly equal, juris. After all, we have to have balance:)
Actually M I think the election will have the same consequences regardless of who wins. The margins really are that small, which is why the hullabaloo about the vastness is all the more ridiculous.
Mark, your comment is an absolutely perfect example of why I have no respect for you intellectually. Just beautiful. Lets go through it:
1: you post a graphic that makes some claims about Soc Sec.
2: You get some criticism of some of those claims. 6Kings does the most substantive criticism, and takes issue with the 1st and 4th points, pointing out that Soc Sec surpluses are spent, not saved, and that the money needed to redeem bonds comes from taxing, borrowing, or printing. In other words, redeeming those bonds most certainly does add to the national debt.
Now we get to your response. I think most people, in seeing your response, would expect that you would do something that points out why you think 6kings is wrong. In other words, you would point out why redeeming soc sec bonds doesn't add to the national debt, for example, or maybe why his description of what happens to Soc Sec money is wrong. What we get is:
First, Marks usual armchair psychoanalyzing. You have a tough time getting through a post or comment thread without bringing this kind of stuff up at least once these days. I've wondered - why isn't it enough for you to just say why you think we are wrong, rather than trying to come up with some kind of "they aren't just incorrect, it's their worldview that is fundamentally flawed!" rationalization? After, you wouldn't accept my speculations about the underlying reasons for your idiocy, why would you think yours carry a speck of weight with me? Anyway, nothing you said in the first paragraph has anything to do with what 6Kings said.
Next, Mark seems to belatedly realize that just saying "you guys are anti-government meanies!" isn't much of an argument, so he figures he better throw something out there so he can seem all factual and stuff. He even labels his links "basic facts." The first link is a link to a 2 pager by the "Economic Opportunity Institute". In it, a bunch of claims are made about Soc Sec. No citations or links are offered to primary sources. The closest any of these claims get to addressing what 6Kings said is this:
"Some fear the government is spending the trust fund instead of saving it. Actually, the trust fund is invested in U.S. Treasury bonds, which are widely considered the safest investment in the world."
Which is not germane to 6Kings point - *how* those bonds are redeemed is the point, and where the money comes from to redeem them. Basic facts Mark?
Next, Mark links to an actuarial projection from the SS trustees. First off, since these are projections, they are by definition not facts, basic or otherwise. In fact, the doc has 3 different projections, all using different cost assumptions. Second, I don't know what this has to do with 6Kings point. Yes, the Soc Sec trustees keep track of how much money is in the "trust fund" and how much interest it produces. Where does that money come from? Basic facts Mark?
Then we get a little commentary by Mark:
"The government does not borrow money to pay for the program nor does it add to the debt. It is a self sustaining program that is paid for by payroll taxes."
Now, keep in mind here - none of Mark's links have addressed what 6Kings said. Nothing Mark has said has done so either. So he is simply asserting that the above is true, with no sources and no reasoning. So I will repeat it again Mark - when Soc Sec redeems bonds, as it has been since 2010, where does the money for those bonds come from? A magic tree?
So Mark decides to link to one more thing - a speech given by economist Monique Morrissey in 2010 to Congress. In it she says that modest payroll tax increases are all thats needed to keep Soc Sec running great, because there is this big trust fund earning interest that makes the shortfall trivial. Once again, a speech is not "basic facts", and once again, this has nothing to do with 6Kings point, and only serves to highlight the big confusion here - the nature of Soc Sec's trust fund. A confusion that Mark has done nothing to clarify here, presumably because he doesn't understand it himself.
Then, we have a gauntlet thrown down by Mark:
"If you can't get past the basic facts of these links for whatever reason, discussion is pointless although maybe I am expecting too much."
As shown, these are anything but "basic facts." But if we don't accept Mark's "facts", discussion is pointless. Well, I do agree about the pointless part, as we've been through all this multiple times in comment sections on this blog - which is what my first comment references.
Lastly - Mark wants an admission that US Treasury bonds are the safest in the world. Once again, this ignores 6Kings point, which is what has to happen for those bonds to be redeemed, and what that does to the national debt, and also that the *safety* of bonds is not something that is being questioned. This also ignores another thing that 6Kinds didn't mention, but I will here. Mark - Soc Sec bonds are not the same as US Treasury bonds. They are not brought or sold on a market. If you don't believe me, try to buy some and see how far you get.
In summary: Mark saw a criticism of his position. He responded by:
1. armchair psychoanalyzing
2. Throwing up smoke and handwaving by posting links to things that didn't respond to the criticism, and stating that those links were "basic facts" that were some mix of unsourced facts (some of which are no doubt true) and opinion.
3. asserting that the criticsm wasn't true on the basis of .. Mark saying it isn't true
4. saying that if we don't agree with his facts-that-aren't-facts, he's too good to discuss the subject
It was just too good - it's some of his most tried and true, idiotic, intellectually lazy, and downright dishonest tactics. All in one comment. As is always the case, I weep for each young mind you ruin.
Btw - we've talked all this through and you've already shown yourself to be completely bankrupt on the subject, but on the off chance you or anyone else wants to educate themselves on the subject, the main disagreement here has to do with whether the Soc Sec trust fund consists of real assets that can be drawn down, like a retirement fund or a bank account, when incoming payroll receipts are less than outgoing. Here are some things to ponder:
1. Soc Sec gets 2 dollars in payroll taxes. It spends one dollar by sending it to retirees. It gives the second dollar to Congress, who spends it in exchange for a bond worth a dollar and interest. When Soc Sec redeems that bond, where does that third dollar and interest come from?
2. Why did the OMB say this (from wiki):
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)
and what does it mean?
3. If tomorrow Congress declared that the Trust Fund didn't exist anymore, and that from here on out all Soc Sec benefits not covered by payroll taxes were instead paid directly out of general revenues, (taxes, borrowing, printing) what, if anything, would change about Soc Sec's financial condition?
Wow, Hap, I think you've officially taken over as being the most obsessed with me of all of Kevin's posters. Several long paragraphs about yours truly and how I'm (insert overly nervous, obviously insecure, and massively obsessive comment here) and not really much substance about the issue at hand. Do you honestly believe that engaging in such an adolescent display is going to prove anything?
They aren't "my facts," Hap. They are simply the facts about Social Security. What you and your ilk are doing is spinning a tale that is born out of an inbred bias about social programs. This clearly frustrates you and the others because it ruins your objectivity (Oh no!) . So you turn to personal attacks (again) to mask reality. You'd think you would have learned by now that you have a "tell" :)
You've lost it Mark.
Hap responded to every one of your positions with a well laid out, logical argument and your response is that he is being adolescent. Look in the mirror Mark.
Not without using my personality as the basis for his response. I'll give 6Kings credit for at least starting off in a fair minded way even though he simply couldn't get around his own bias. But then he called the Democrats "dumb" and was then 8 years old.
This is truly a tough one for you guys because this is probably the most successful example of why the core of your ideology is deeply flawed. Worse, you have to intimate that the United States isn't capable of paying its bills in order to "win the argument"....a destructive lie with far greater consequences than Harry Reid's alleged falsehood.
The good news for you guys is that there will always be challenges with Social Security so at least you can still get all emotional and make shit up based on a quarter truth.
Democrats are dumb as they continue to espouse policies that nobody can pay for long term or in their current setup and won't allow adjustments to address fiscal reality. DUMB. And Harry Reid is the biggest ASS of the bunch. Heck, you can't even follow the math when wehave pointed out the facts of this overspending. Now we have Debt at 16+ Trillion or 100% of GDP, unfunded liabilities upwards of 100-200 Trillion and the Democrats (Repubs too although there are bright spots) keep piling it on thinking like you do, that the bill won't come due. And I am the one that is 8 years old? Please!
The US can pay its bills...by borrowing currently (1.2+ Trillion annually). It can probably do that for the next decade, maybe longer but it isn't sustainable. At some point (via math) our ability to fund anything other than interest on debt let alone the principle payment plus our 'mandatory' social programs will overwhelm our country (Currently 67% of government spending via OMB 2011 and almost 100% of Tax Revenue just for welfare, SS, Health, and Interest). The government now borrows the entire amount it needs to fund its original intent - Laws and defense! How about that?
And I am the one that is 8 years old? Please!
As long as you continue to make dishonest statements like this one, yes. You aren't telling all of the truth here, you are panic mongering, and you are allowing your own bias to erode any sort of serious critical thinking.
. It can probably do that for the next decade, maybe longer but it isn't sustainable.
Finally, a glimmer of light. At least you admit it's a long term, not a short term, concern. What you fail to admit is that it is solvable. Over the next decade, we can make a few adjustments to Medicare and Social Security, cut 2 trillion dollars in spending, raise 1 trillion dollars in revenue (based on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for those making over 250K and eliminating subsidies and loopholes like cap gains), and we will be in better shape. This doesn't even account for the increase revenue that will likely occur as the economy improves.
Not without using my personality as the basis for his response.
If your consistent answer to 2+2 is 'hey look a puppy' - then pointing out your 'non-answer' is legitimate.
At least you admit it's a long term, not a short term, concern
You are fucking out of your mind.
If your consistent answer to 2+2 is 'hey look a puppy'
Your consistent response when I present facts you don't like is to say this in hopes no one will notice your lack of critical thought. I'm still wondering if you or anyone else is capable of making a point without mentioning my name.
Marks usual armchair psychoanalyzing.
Mark seems to belatedly realize that just saying
Basic facts Mark?
Mark links to an actuarial projection
Then we get a little commentary by Mark:
none of Mark's links have addressed
Nothing Mark has said has done so either.
So Mark decides to link to one more thing
Then, we have a gauntlet thrown down by Mark:
But if we don't accept Mark's "facts", discussion is pointless.
Mark wants an admission
Mark saw a criticism of his position.
And that's just the sentences in which he mentions my name. How can anyone take comments like this seriously?
Hey dipshit, the argument he is addressing is the one put forth by some idiot named Mark.
It should not be surprising to anyone except the serially ignorant the when addressing an argument to a person named Mark that one would utilize the use of the name Mark in doing so.
Of course, if you would prefer we make an argument without reference to you or any of your so called facts or points then you would first have to promise that you would never ever ever say that we are ignoring the "points" you made........
Oh wait....it's that normal back and forth thing in a discussion.....creeps up and hits you in the head....
You make a point, hap makes a counter point. He may have to actually reference your point (or lack of point if relevant) in order to - well FUCKING REPLY TO YOU AND YOUR ARGUMENT.
if you would prefer we make an argument without reference to you or any of your so called facts or points then you would first have to promise that you would never ever ever say that we are ignoring the "points" you made........
What I'm looking for is something you, Hap, and the others have continually insisted that you are: critical thinkers who use logic and reason in determining the best course of action. That means no personal commentary and a weighing of all available evidence without passion or bias.
Now, right away, we have a problem with Hap because he runs a small business and probably blows a bowel every time it's payroll tax time. Can Hap step outside of himself and be reasonable? Thus far, the answer to that is no.
This has largely been true with the issue of Social Security. You guys don't like it so you have an ax to grind. That ax involves privatizing it. So, all information that supports pursuing this action is presented with the rest conveniently left out.
I didn't make the points listed in this graphic. Bernie Sanders did so you should be able to leave me out of it. Leave Senator Sanders out of it too and just look at the statements. There are four of them so go ahead and say "True", "False", or somewhere in between to each one, answering each one honestly. And remember, by honestly, I don't mean only including the facts that support your argument. ALL the facts.
You just don't even know or care when you are lying, do you M?
What was that about repeating lies often enough?
Notice that Mark isn't even trying to address anything related to Soc Sec and the points that 6Kings and I have made about it. He isn't talking about the structure of Soc Sec, or how its bonds function, or arguing with 6Kings and I about whether it contributes to the debt or not. Instead, he wants to talk about:
- The length/number of my initial set of posts
- How the stuff he links to are "facts", conveniently ignoring my calling into question their description as "facts"
- How my comment is adolescent, because.. well, I don't know. Maybe because he didn't like having his comment dissected.
- How my comment somehow used his personality as a basis for its response, as if Soc Sec's structure and its effect on the debt has anything to do with Mark's personality.
- How my posts use his name a lot. As GD pointed out, it's because I'm dissecting a comment made by a guy named Mark. Weird, that.
- An entreaty to engage in critical thinking. Spoken, of course, by the person who utterly refuses to engage in any thinking, critical or otherwise, about any of the counter points made to his post and comments.
In short, Mark does just about anything but talk about the criticism of the graphic he put up, criticism that came in the very first comment. This is what he is folks. This is what he does. This is why he almost never has anything coherent, original, or meaningful to say.
And I just had to point this out:
>There are four of them so go ahead and say "True", "False", or somewhere in between to each one, answering each one honestly.
Mark: read the very first comment for the answer. The very first paragraph even! You try so hard, and fall so flat. You have my pity.
I'd be happy to talk about the criticism of Social Security, Hap. Make a logical, reasoned, and (fully) fact based analysis of it without any personal remarks, bias, or axes to grind. Don't leave out anything..a FULL analysis..except you could leave out the heading off at the pass comments (about time to accuse me of handwaving when you are the one actually doing it)
Until offer this full analysis, your assertions that you are an impartial analyst are bullshit.
6Kings made a small effort which I will grant him but his first paragraph loses all credibility when he called Democrats dumb. He then doubled down on those comments in a later comment which makes it very hard to take him seriously. The same goes for Guard Duck who, like you, wants to make this all about me. It's not about me. It's about Social Security.
I'd be happy to talk about the criticism of Social Security, Hap.
Liar.
Money loaned to yourself and then spent is not still yours.
It doesn't matter if you call it a trust fund. It doesn't matter if you have always paid your debts and have a great credit rating.
The SS 'trust fund' is loaned to the Gov't and spent.
Two column accounting.
Credit and debit.
The money loaned to itself cancels out on either side of the ledger - $1 credit = $1 debit.
Can you understand that concept before we go further?
Can you understand that concept before we go further?
Hmm...isn't this a sort of "So, how long have you been beating your wife" type of question?" You may as well have asked me, "Are you stupid or do you not understand math?"
I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to wriggle out of critical discussion regarding Social Security, GD. By setting the parameters as you did above, we're heading down the path of confirmation bias.
Start from an unbiased place. I gave 6Kings a chance to do it above (since he at least made a small step in that direction) by asking him to look at SS without bias. For example, if he had started with the two different measures of the deficit, we might have been able to look at SS in a critical way.
For you, you are purposefully leaving out key ingredients in how the system is set up. In short, you are not being honest and it's because you don't like Social Security and you want to win the argument. Hap has the same problem. Change that attitude and I'd be happy to have a discussion with you.
Start from an unbiased place.
That's math dude. Basic math.
Your refusal to accept that means you want to have conversation based in fantasy - not reality.
Have fun.
So, that's a no, then? If you change your mind, you know where to find me.
Sure, when you want to acknowledge grade school math.
Well, math is honest, GD. So you're going to have to tell the truth and be that critical thinker that you say you are before we get anywhere. You aren't being either and worse you are oversimplifying the issue-what a shock. The issue of Social Secueity as it relates to budget deficits Is more complex than grade school marh.
The facts listed in the graphic are technically accurate, but they suffer from a lack of context and other relevant facts. First, as far as past and current FICA withholding totals compared to outlays, Social Security hasn't yet contributed to the deficit or debt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that's going to be changing soon. Second, before Social Security existed was the darkest depths of the Great Depression. That certainly had a very great deal to do with how many elderly were in poverty. Over 40% of everybody else was in poverty, too. It's easy to show dramatic improvement when you start measuring at a rock-bottom low point in modern history. Lastly, as others have pointed out, there is no "surplus" except on paper. The money's been spent and we've issued ourselves IOUs that will be paid off with either future tax increases or borrowing or by "running the printing presses" (electronically speaking). You can't eat all your cake today and still have it all left to eat tomorrow, too.
Hmm...isn't this a sort of "So, how long have you been beating your wife" type of question?"
No, it wasn't. You wanted it to be so you could avoid it. You are a dishonest and not very bright child.
budget deficits Is more complex than grade school marh
So is rocket science - but if your grade school math is wrong that rocket won't fly.
you're going to have to tell the truth and be that critical thinker that you say you are before we get anywhere
Funny how you refer to math as honest - then refuse to discuss it. Makes it pretty obvious who's being dishonest.
Let's look at that critical thought statement of yours.
Who is attempting to apply critical thought in this case - the person who claims the subject is all so complex that math doesn't apply, or the person who is attempting to break it down to its base functions?
Critical thought also involves self reflection Mark - something you are severely lacking in this case.
>I'd be happy to talk about the criticism of Social Security, Hap.
Mark would be "happy" to talk about the criticism of Soc Sec - and yet he isn't. Why not? After all, a substantive criticism of the graphic was given in the very first comment, and expanded a little bit in my comment. Why isn't he talking about how Soc Sec's trust fund works, and how it interacts with government debt, if at all, for example?
>Make a logical, reasoned, and (fully) fact based analysis of it without any personal remarks, bias, or axes to grind. Don't leave out anything..a FULL analysis..except you could leave out the heading off at the pass comments (about time to accuse me of handwaving when you are the one actually doing it)
Maybe this is why he isn't talking about Soc Sec - Mark wants to pretend that the already made criticisms out of bounds because they aren't "logical, reasoned, and fully fact based, (etc etc.)" Notably absent from this declaration is just what it is about the criticisms that isn't logical, reasoned, or fully fact based. He just asserts that it is so. Another nonsensical aspect of this declaration - my comment pointed out exactly why his comment wasn't logical, reasoned, or fact based, and how it didn't address 6kings criticism, yet he ignores that; he also seemingly does not notice the rather glaring hypocrisy - Mark will only discuss criticism that meets his standards of logic, reason, and factual-ness, and yet his own comments do not seem to have to meet any such standard, as I pointed out, and Mark hasn't rebutted. None of this stopped me from pointing out why I think he is factually wrong - what is stopping Mark from doing the same? A final thing of note - exactly where does Mark think he has gained the authority to decide what constitutes logical, or reasoned, or factual, without explaining why he believes that? I'm a senior employee where I work, and I still have to explain my reasoning to people who have been on the job for 1 day. Yet Mark seems to think that such things are unnecessary. Why?
>Until offer this full analysis, your assertions that you are an impartial analyst are bullshit.
Note here that Mark asserts something that wasn't stated by me - that I am an impartial analyst. Also implicit in this statement is that one must be an impartial analyst to discuss a subject, and that not being impartial in some way renders an argument, by definition, invalid. This belief assumption has two problems - first, defining someone as "impartial" or not is pretty subjective - for example, I wouldn't consider Mark to be in any way shape or form impartial, nor, would I suspect, he consider me impartial. Since there is no truly impartial authority we can appeal to to get our "impartiality scores", does that mean it is impossible to talk about anything? Note that my belief that Mark isn't impartial hasn't stopped me from addressing his arguments. Why has it stopped him? Second, the partiality of a person (also known as bias) has nothing to do with whether a particular argument that person makes is true, valid, reasoned, or logical. Here is a discussion of it: http://silasreinagel.blogspot.com/2010/03/false-fallacy-argument-from-bias.html. I admit the first example made me laugh, because it's Mark to a T - he might have gotten the example from one of Mark's comments.
>6Kings made a small effort which I will grant him but his first paragraph loses all credibility when he called Democrats dumb.
Here, I think, we come to the source of Mark's problem. Mark seems to believe that if he encounters language he does not like, it automatically renders any argument made in close (or far, I don't think he cares) proximity to said language null and void, regardless of the merits of the argument that was made. In other words, if I write a paragraph making very specific claims about how Soc Sec works, and then my last sentence says "And Mark is a moron.", Mark seems to believe that the last sentence invalidates everything that came before it, such that he doesn't even have to try to explain why my claims might be wrong. Why does Mark seem to think that?
>The same goes for Guard Duck who, like you, wants to make this all about me. It's not about me. It's about Social Security.
Here we see one of those facepalm assertions that Mark occasionally makes, due it to being so blatantly false that it is very difficult to believe he isn't being deliberately dishonest. He says that we are trying to make this all about him, when every single comment he has made in this thread has been about anything but the relevant topic, Soc Sec's trust fund - he's mostly talked about us. The first paragraph he wrote in this thread, for example, was very specifically about us, not about Soc Sec. Now, all of a sudden, further down the thread, he professes bewilderment that Soc Sec isn't the only topic under discussion. Note also the howler in the final sentence: "It's about Social Security." Ok, so why isn't Mark talking about Social Security? Its trust fund? Its interaction with government debt?
>I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to wriggle out of critical discussion regarding Social Security, GD. By setting the parameters as you did above, we're heading down the path of confirmation bias.
And here we see some monumental hubris. Mark, the person who has avoided saying anything substantive about Soc Sec for this entire comment thread, is trying to lecture other people about attempting to "wriggle out" of critical discussion about Soc Sec, somehow not noticing his own glaring lack of discussion about the subject. Further, he accuses GD of "heading down the path of confirmation bias", but doesn't explain how or why he thinks GD is doing that. He just asserts it.
>For example, if he had started with the two different measures of the deficit, we might have been able to look at SS in a critical way.
Note that Mark doesn't tell us what those two different measures of the deficit are, or explain why that might be relevant to Soc Sec and its trust fund, so that we can have an informed discussion about whether those measures are relevant or important, as he seems to believe they are. He just asserts it to be so.
>For you, you are purposefully leaving out key ingredients in how the system is set up.
Note that Mark doesn't tell us which key ingredients these are, or why he thinks it is important to not leave them out, so that we can have an informed discussion about whether those ingredients are relevant or important, as he seems to believe they are. He just asserts it to be so.
Finally - Mark seems to have trouble with the notion that the way that Soc Sec works is a matter of fact - facts that can be perceived, understood, and argued about by someone regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, and regardless of whether they believe Soc Sec is a good idea or not. Yet it is these very facts that Mark seems to be most unwilling to talk about. Why is that?
GD, my problem with you is that you are framing the argument in such a way that it will lead us to the conclusion that you desire. I'd rather have a discussion that leads us to unbiased and fair analysis. If you can do that, great. Thus far, you are doing the bully thing again and it really is quite childish.
Hap, I suggest you take a break from posting here and go spend some time with live people. It will do you some good.
Now Ming here is heading more in the direction that is substantive. It's a generally honest statement and I agree with some of it. I disagree, however, with the characterization of this statement
Lastly, as others have pointed out, there is no "surplus" except on paper.
Some basic facts:
• Social Security is required by law to be self-financing
• Payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments regularly until 2010
• This generated a surplus of $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust Funds
• There is now a net shortfall which is expected to deplete the surplus by 2037
• Treasury borrowed from the surplus in the Trust Funds to pay for other programs
• The government is now having to borrow money to pay its Social Security obligations
So, yes, there was a surplus that has been growing for the last 25 years and it was designed that way to withstand the baby boomer withdrawal time deficits.
Consider this: suppose the Treasury had borrowed money from Guard Duck (instead of the surplus in Social Security) to make up for the deficit (in fact, this is the case if he owns government bonds). Would Guard Duck then be "contributing to the deficit" now that the government is borrowing money to pay him back.
I'd also urge you to consider the difference between the unified budget and the on budget budget.
If by framing the argument you mean trying to talk about numbers using reality based measures rather than fantasy bookkeeping, then yes I am.
If by bully thing you mean insisting that you accept addition and subtraction calculations when discussing something that's base operation is addition and subtraction, then yes I am.
>Hap, I suggest you take a break from posting here and go spend some time with live people. It will do you some good.
Don't worry - it really doesn't take much time to unpack all your language - all the hidden assumptions, the pretenses to authority, the misleading or false statements, and the blind assertions. It's just kind of ugly when your words get translated to plain english, isn't it? Regardless, it's good that you finally started talking about Soc Sec in your last comment. It only took you 40 comments to do so. Unfortunately, you're still ignoring the basic points that were made upthread about the trust fund. Namely:
Does it make sense to treat the trust fund as a pile of real economic assets that can be drawn down to pay SS benefits? As pointed out waaay upthread, the OMB stated quite clearly that the trust fund is nothing more than an accounting device. Were they lying? Wrong? How or why? Also the point made upthread - if a law was passed that made the trust fund not exist, and made it so that shortfalls came directly out of the general fund, what would change about the amount of money the government must raise to meet its obligations? (Hint: nothing.) If you agree that the answer is nothing, then why is the trust fund or surplus-that-was-spent-as-soon-as-it-was-gotten even worth mentioning? If you don't agree, then explain why.
>Consider this: suppose the Treasury had borrowed money from Guard Duck (instead of the surplus in Social Security) to make up for the deficit (in fact, this is the case if he owns government bonds). Would Guard Duck then be "contributing to the deficit" now that the government is borrowing money to pay him back.
No, GD would not be contributing to the deficit because he is not part of the federal government, unlike SS. (Very poor comparison btw.) Further: GD does not possess taxing or money printing authority, unlike SS which directly possesses taxing authority, and indirectly possesses money printing authority. Further: any debt GD takes on would be voluntarily taken on by purchasing Treasury bonds on the open market. SS does not purchase Treasury bonds on the open market, nor does it exist as a separate entity that can choose whether or not to purchase bonds - it is part of the federal government, and subject to its whims. You seem to want to act as if SS is some separate, unrelated entity.
Now - are you going to respond to actual points that were made, or are you going to make more logically unsupported assertions?
It only took you 40 comments to do so.
It would have been a lot sooner if you were capable of critical thought and analysis and didn't have an ax to grind against me or Social Security. You're biased, Hap. Admit it and move on.
GD would not be contributing to the deficit because he is not part of the federal government, unlike SS. (Very poor comparison btw.)
Yet, under your logic, he would be, regardless of whether or not he was a part of the government, because they were paying him interest on debt just as they are to SS.
Of course, this is where your bias comes into play. It's all the .GOV so it must all be the same, right?
Except, by law, it's not and the fact that you aren't admitting this means that you aren't being honest.
Now - are you going to respond to actual points that were made, or are you going to make more logically unsupported assertions?
Are you with me or are you with the terrorists?
To Haplo9, 6Kings, and Guard Duck,
Saying that Social Security will add to the deficit in any year in which its benefit payments exceed its tax collections (and even if the fund still has a surplus due to the interest it collects on the government bonds it holds) is like saying as soon as a car pulls away from the gas station it uses more gas than it takes in and adds to the "gas deficit" despite the full tank of gas just acquired. To continue this analogy in terms of yourself and the others you should then howl that this cannot continue and all traffic will eventually come to a full stop.
How much gasoline consumed compared to how much is in the tank is only relevant to how many effective tank fulls are stored in the SS investment inventory and the rate of draw down, none of which affects the on-budget deficit or surplus.
There's a hidden ideology behind what you are saying that is designed to characterize SS as welfare funded by all taxpayers rather than the self funded insurance it is.
Sincerely,
Lance
Suppose SS was an insurance company receiving premiums (ss taxes), holding interest paying assets ( US treasury bonds) and paying settlements (SS benefits). Suppose settlement payments exceeded premiums, the difference coming from interest on the US treasury bonds. Would we then claim that the insurance company cash flow is raising the US deficit? I don't think so. To me this is easier to understand than citing two government budgets that seem contrived to non accountants.
Alan, that's a better example than the one I used above with GD. And I agree with you about the two different budgets to a certain extent. But remember that Social Security is its own entity under law so that's why there is a distinction.
Oh, and sorry to miss a nod of the head to you, Lance. Very amusing analogy! I also like how you addressed your comment in a letter.
Social Security has always been a self funded off budget program. The SS tax is the oft mentioned flat tax except that it phases out above $105K. There is no fund that is as solvent as the SS fund and it has in excess of a 2 trillion dollar surplus. This is not a smoke and mirrors surplus but is one backed by treasury bills and notes just like China and Saudi Arabia who are not worried about being repaid either.
SS was designed to be a worker/employer self funding retirement annuity. The Reagan 80's "reform" allowed Congress to withdraw the "surplus" & substitute Treasury IOUs.
The last tax-breaks-4-the-rich "deal" in the lame duck session reduced the payroll deductions & set up the fund to draw funds from general revenues to make up the difference ... right wing budget hacks have been trying to undercut SS since the 30's ... they succeeded in December and now hail the demise of SS because it increases the deficit ... which is doesn't ... unless you view it through the eyes of those who deny the existence of government & are therefore unable to govern.
Wow. Where did all these people come from?
>It would have been a lot sooner if you were capable of critical thought and analysis and didn't have an ax to grind against me or Social Security. You're biased, Hap. Admit it and move on.
Note that Mark again attempts to reserve for himself the right to judge what constitutes critical thought and analysis. From where does he think he has earned that right?
Regarding bias, you didn't read what I said above about impartiality, bias, and their relationship to making an argument, did you. I am most certainly biased. So are you. So is everyone, to one degree or another. Someones bias does not make their argument automatically incorrect - errors of logic, fact, or reasoning are what makes arguments wrong. That's why I've been pointing out that you focus obsessively on things that have nothing to do with the argument. I understand that you focus on things like bias to try to avoid talking substantively about a subject, but I suspect that even you, somewhere, realizes that you're just trying to avoid subjects you don't want to talk about.
>Yet, under your logic, he would be
No. Two entities versus one. (Alan's example is a lot better than mine so I won't bother explaining further.)
>It's all the .GOV so it must all be the same, right?
For the purposes of how much it costs to pay for government, yes. That is the whole point. That's why I have been giving you thought experiments about a world where the trust fund doesn't exist. It doesn't change the fiscal reality of where and how much money the gov has to raise one bit.
>and even if the fund still has a surplus due to the interest it collects on the government bonds it holds
Lance: where does the money for that interest come from? Who collects it? I confess I don't understand the rest of your analogy.
>But remember that Social Security is its own entity under law so that's why there is a distinction.
Please cite the law. I suspect "its own entity" means something quite different to me that it does to you, especially with respect to how SS is funded.
>This is not a smoke and mirrors surplus but is one backed by treasury bills and notes just like China and Saudi Arabia who are not worried about being repaid either.
This is false. The treasury bills and notes in the SS trust fund are not publically traded, like the ones that China and Saudi Arabia has. You're also making the same mistake that Mark did - the issue is not whether the treasury bonds are "safe", its whether the redemption of those bonds adds to the deficit/debt, or whether it makes sense to view that 2.7 trillion dollars of already spent money as an actual economic asset, or just a bookkeeping device. I ask you to imagine, like I asked Mark, and he has of course ignored, what would happen if the trust fund were to disappear overnight and the government simply paid SS shortfalls out of its general budget. Would the government suddenly be 2.7 trillion dollars poorer, and have to collect 2.7 trillion more dollars than it otherwise would have had to? I've asked Mark this question multiple times - why won't he answer it?
Hey Mark, I found this blog when I did search on Social Security if that answers your question. You have some real cretins hanging around here. Too bad.
I can 't speak for Mark but your question is really dumb, Haplo9. The trust fund was purposefully set up to be a separate entity because of the nature of the program. It's funded by payroll taxes, not income tax so it's not going to be put in the general budget but I suspect you know that and are simply leading the witness. You ask questions to lead to the conclusion you want which, looking back, Mark noted above. That's why he doesn't answer. You're trying to convince him of a something that isn't honest.
The only addition to the deficit caused by Social Security is the $120bn credit for this one-year payroll tax holiday; otherwise, the program is required by law to be self-financing. That law (and all other facts related to Social Security) can be found here.
http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp
I hope that answers Haplo9's question. Sorry if I overstepped the site administrator here but I can't stand trolls.
The only reason the Trust Fund has to begin selling its bonds to cover its payouts is because its massive surplus has been depleted by Congress spending the money on other programs. And that's not the same as adding to the deficit, anyway; it's just redistributing it to whomever eventually buys the bonds. Now, that's not to say that Social Security isn't in financial trouble, but it still has 26 years to go before the service on the debts owed to it run out. It can be financed beyond that point by increases to the payroll tax, which, again, will not add to the general fund deficit.
Wow - confusion about how SS works is pretty rampant. These aren't difficult concepts people. Try to wrap your heads around them.
>I can't speak for Mark but your question is really dumb, Haplo9.
So.. does that mean you won't answer it? I mean, it's a simple question, and it's purpose is to make clear whether the trust fund has economic value or not. Come on Glenn, be a big boy!
>The trust fund was purposefully set up to be a separate entity because of the nature of the program.
Separate from what? The federal government? I hope that isn't what you mean, because the obvious question that comes from that is why is the SS trust fund maintained by the US Treasury?
>It's funded by payroll taxes, not income tax so it's not going to be put in the general budget but I suspect you know that and are simply leading the witness.
Glenn - sorry, but that is simply not true. The trust fund is not funded by payroll taxes at all, because payroll taxes are spent immediately after they are collected - either on SS benefits or by Congress which takes any surplus and spends it. Then, when bonds in the trust fund are redeemed, the federal government raises money to pay them like any other debt - it raises taxes, borrows money, or prints money. So yes - income taxes are one of the things that "fund" the trust fund. I put "fund" in quotes because the word implies that the trust fund contains real economic assets, which is something I am disputing.
D Nichols:
>the program is required by law to be self-financing.
Er.. So? Does the existence of a law mean that it is in reality self financing?
>I hope that answers Haplo9's question.
Not particularly - did you have a location in mind on that site? It's pretty big. How about answering it yourself? It's not a hard question, is it? Btw - do you agree with this, from that site:
The Clinton administration's 2000 budget proposal states that the Social Security Trust Fund does
not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.[258]
>The only reason the Trust Fund has to begin selling its bonds to cover its payouts is because its massive surplus has been depleted by Congress spending the money on other programs.
Correct - that Congress which is part of the federal government, of which SS is also a part of.
>And that's not the same as adding to the deficit, anyway; it's just redistributing it to whomever eventually buys the bonds.
This doesn't make sense. You do realize that SS bonds are special bonds, that can only be sold back to the federal government, and no one else.. right? In other words, its exactly the same as adding to the deficit.
Just ... wow. I guess the Federal government can both spend the money and save the money all at once. Apparently all is possible through the magical unicorn powers of government. "Away, base demons of accounting! You shall have no hold here upon my true believers! Begone, foul math, and trouble my people no more!"
There's a hidden ideology behind what you are saying that is designed to characterize SS as welfare funded by all taxpayers rather than the self funded insurance it is.
Well, M has a new sockpuppet to tell his lies.
Based on wording and phrases, I'm guessing multiples. Maybe not even socks.
Suppose SS was
Because you don't want to deal with what it really is?
Where did all these people come from?
Manifestations of the voices in your head I would guess. It's no wonder you can't hold a thought as crowded as it is in there.
My version of the summary thus far:
-Mark and co seem to recognize that redeeming SS bonds requires the federal government to raise taxes, borrow money, or print money.
-Mark and co don't seem to be willing to answer the question directly, but I think they do seem to grudgingly recognize that if the trust fund disappeared and the government paid benefit differences out of its general fund, the net impact on the goverments books would be zero.
-There are some relatively minor points of confusion - some people seem unaware that SS must buy US treasuries with any surplus it has, whereas an independent entity could choose not to. Also unclear to some people is that the bonds SS buys are not available to the public or to other countries, like normal US treasuries are.
-The source of the disagreement seems to be whether or not SS (and its trust funds) can be considered to be the same as the federal government for accounting purposes. They seem to want to consider SS as a separate entity, like, say, Canada. In this scenario, if Canada owned a bunch of US Treasuries, it would be accurate to say that "Canada has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or national debut.", since they voluntarily loaned us money by buying bonds. It would also be accurate to say that Canada has a "trust fund" made up of US Treasuries, which have real economic value that can be drawn down when needed, assuming the US can pay. If, however, SS is the same as the federal government for the purposes of accounting, then this distinction is meaningless, since its just one part of the government owing another part of the government: net difference = 0.
Obviously, I think the claim that SS is distinct from the federal government is groundless - SS is a creation of Congress, is required by law to give all surpluses to the US Treasury, and uses the federal government's taxing authority to collect payroll taxes, just to name a few obvious reasons.
So at this point, I'm just waiting to see if Mark and co can come up with a coherent reason why it makes sense to view SS as separate from the federal gov.
I've asked Mark this question multiple times - why won't he answer it?
Because I don't want to play your games, Hap. You've framed the question in such a way that any answer works to your benefit. Or, if I don't answer, you can squawk about how I'm stupid or hiding something. There's no critical thinking involved in that at all-it's bullying and games which is about all you have.
It's odd that you always have to ask questions of me and can't seem to ever simply state your views and support them with evidence. I wonder why that is the case.
Odder still is the long comments you leave as if you are hoping to convince someone of...something. There's only a few hundred people that read this blog on a daily basis and this far down in comments, it's only us and a few strays here and there. Those couple that do post are then bullied by you and the other TSM commenters in the hopes of...what exactly? Winning? Winning what?
Whatever it is, it has to be important to you to write so much on someone else's blog...a blog that is very little known and could honestly not even be rated 5th rate. I'd say that's a pretty sad statement on where your life is if you are spending that much time on here. I probably spend too much time on here but it's my blog so at least I have an excuse, albeit a weak one.
I wonder what you guys would do if there ever was a regular group of critical thinkers that posted here to counter your chest thumping, emotional outbursts. If this thread is any indication, you'd probably get even worse. As always, if you want to stop grinding that ax on SS and analyze critically, I'd be open to a discussion. Otherwise, plan on me calling you on your bullshit.
Haplo8, I was thinking of the financial status section, the popular perception section, and the impact on the national debt sections. Your comments here show you to most verbose so that's why I linked such a large amount of information. Looking back on this thread, I can see that if you own a small business, it's no wonder you take the view that you do on Social Security. The sections above directly contradict some of what you assert. That doesn't mean you are entirely wrong. Just that you are not telling the whole story.
I'm so surprised to find that Mark is back to talking about anything other than SS! So Mark, I take it your answer to this:
Note that Mark again attempts to reserve for himself the right to judge what constitutes critical thought and analysis. From where does he think he has earned that right?
is "because I say so"? Nothing changes though, huh Mark? Just like for the last 5 years or so, asking you to explain the reasoning behind your claims is some kind of personal affront, or a gross task that you don't want to lower yourself to.
>It's odd that you always have to ask questions of me and can't seem to ever simply state your views and support them with evidence. I wonder why that is the case.
Really? I would have thought it was quite obvious that my view is that:
-SS does contribute to our deficit and national debt.
-SS does not have a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus, at least not one that has any economic value.
You know, the claim that was made in the very first comment. Aside from deconstructing your nonstop attempts to smokescreen and handwave, everything i've been arguing has been in support of those two points. What did you think was going on?
>Those couple that do post are then bullied by you and the other TSM commenters in the hopes of...what exactly? Winning? Winning what?
We've been all through this before. How do you bully someone on the internet? Yes, I argue forcefully. Horrors. As to my purpose, I've told you this before too. If I'm wrong on SS, I want to know why I'm wrong so that.. get ready for it.. I can not be wrong anymore. Insane, isn't it? Also insane - when someone else says "you're wrong" with no other explanation or reason, my response isn't going to be "oh, ok", it's going to be "um, care to explain that a bit further?" You are of course #1 in this department, with your repetition of "you're not thinking critically" followed by a refusal to explain why. It still amazes me that you believe that you're making an argument when you do that.
>I wonder what you guys would do if there ever was a regular group of critical thinkers that posted here to counter your chest thumping, emotional outbursts.
See but Mark, from my standpoint, you are the person least capable of critical thought here, and by a country mile. Where does that leave us? You don't think I can think critically, I don't think you can think critically. What is to be done? Hey, I have an idea. You can stop whining about critical thought, stop acting like you are a judge of it (note that I don't - ever wondered why?), and explain why you think the things I say are wrong, or flawed, or what about them is lacking in critical thought. Then I can respond with my own points about the points you made. It's sort of a point - counterpoint thing. They even have a name for this process - it's called "argument." You rarely do this, but even someone as close minded as you can learn.. maybe..
I'm touched by your concern for how I spend my time. Well, aside from the implication that I'm a loser who spends too much time on your site, that isn't very touching. Actually, it's a rather transparent way to avoid talking about the subject, don't you think?
>The sections above directly contradict some of what you assert. That doesn't mean you are entirely wrong. Just that you are not telling the whole story.
Nichols. Seriously - what is the deal with people on this site? Why is so hard for you to say *what* contradicts some of what I asserted? Why not tell *what* part of the story I'm missing, and why you think it is important? (This is why people are musing about you being Mark's sockpuppet - you have the same "declaration without explanation" tendency that he has.) Anyway, I read through the three sections you mention, and nothing stands out. I can see a number of things that simply presume the things I am disputing, such as items that list the value of the trust fund, whereas I am disputing that the trust fund has any meaningful economic value. Is it your contention that such things are beyond the realm of dispute or argument?
>Hey Mark, I found this blog when I did search on Social Security if that answers your question.
Btw - as I happen to be in the industry, would you care to explain just how you did this search? Mark's blog isn't nearly linked to often enough to show up highly ranked on search engines like google or bing for you to have gotten to it from there. Even if you search for "Social Security Markadelphia" you get hits from all over his website, as SS has been a fairly common topic. Just how did you end up on this comment thread?
(At first I didn't bother with the sockpuppet hypothesis because its hard to prove without ip logs. But then I thought about how it would not be easy to just randomly land on a small site like Mark's.)
I'm so surprised to find that Mark is back to talking about anything other than SS!
Heading me off at the pass again, eh, Hap? I'd be happy to talk about Social Security. If only you could stop talking about me.
-SS does contribute to our deficit and national debt.
-SS does not have a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus, at least not one that has any economic value.
Neither one of these statements is true as has been shown to you by the comments in this thread. In regards to the latter, you are essentially saying that US Treasury Bonds have no economic value. Under law, they must be paid back. I know you don't "believe" this because of your feelings about the government but that is what is true in reality.
Further, from the facts link provided by D Nichols
* The Social Security program has an independent budget that is separate from the rest of the federal government.
* When the Social Security program collects more in taxes than it spends, it generates surplus money. By law, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with surplus money is loan it to the U.S. government
Again, in a different way, because we seem to have trouble understanding.
* When Social Security's sources of income exceed its expenses, the resultant surpluses must be loaned to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. By law, the Treasury must pay this money back to the Social Security program with interest.
* No money has been taken from the Social Security program.[200] [201] By law, Social Security surpluses must be loaned to the federal government,[202] [203] which is a requirement that was established in the original Social Security Act of 1935.[204] [205] [206] [207] The federal government is legally required to pay back this money to the Social Security program with interest,[208] and it has never failed to do so.[209] [210]
*The national debt is not paid for with Social Security taxes but with money from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury,[244] [245] [246] which comes from income taxes (66%), corporate income taxes (23%), excise taxes (5%), and other miscellaneous taxes (6%) [percentages current as of 2006].[247]
So, you see, Social Security does not contribute to the on budget deficit because it can only spend money that it collects from the designated payroll tax or from the investment of past surpluses.
If I'm wrong on SS, I want to know why I'm wrong so that.. get ready for it.. I can not be wrong anymore.
Great. See the above facts and admit that you are wrong.
I would have chosen the same bullet points that Mark chose so that's fine with me. It wasn't hard for me to point them out. I just thought that since you had written so much on here that you would want to be thorough in examining all the facts. This can be a very convoluted topic so it's important to see it from all angles.
>Neither one of these statements is true as has been shown to you by the comments in this thread.
Lol. Had to laugh on that one. Which comments would those be? The ones where you talked about anything but SS?
>In regards to the latter, you are essentially saying that US Treasury Bonds have no economic value. Under law, they must be paid back.
No, I'm saying that the Treasury Bonds owned by SS (a part of the federal governemnt) have no economic value, becaues the entity that makes good on those bonds (the federal government) is the same entity that owns those bonds (SS, which is part of the federal government.) If those bonds didn't exist, the net change to the governments books would be zero. Why do you keep acting as if this distinction is unimportant?
If a department in a corporation lends money to a different department, the lendee spends the loan, and the lender keeps a note saying I'm owed xxx dollars, does that note have economic value? No, right? Then why do you think that in the case of the government, the answer is yes? I've yet to see any reasoning that explains that.
Anyway since you think that the cited bits from the justfacts site support your case, what do you think this one means, from the 'Debt to be Paid' section:
The Clinton administration's 2000 budget proposal states that the Social Security Trust Fund does
not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.[258]
"not consist of real economic assets"
Weird, huh? That sounds awfully similar to what I'm saying, doesn't it? Is the OMB wrong?
Anyway, to the parts you and Nichols linked:
Why do you think that having an "independent" budget is meaningful here? Are you thinking that the word "independent" somehow means that SS is an entirely separate entity from the federal government? As separate as, say, Cananda, to refer to the example I gave upthread?
I think this notion of SS as "independent" of the federal government is what is the sticking point here. Like this:
>When Social Security's sources of income exceed its expenses, the resultant surpluses must be loaned
Again, you're not addressing the key point. How and why is it economically meaningful for the federal government to loan money to itself?
>The federal government is legally required to pay back this money to the Social Security program with interest,[208] and it has never failed to do so.
I don't follow why you think this is relevant. Yes, the federal government makes up any difference for SS by raising taxes, borrowing, or printing money. It's not likely to fail to do so. That has nothing to do with whether making up that difference contributes to the deficit/debt. (Which it clearly does.)
>So, you see, Social Security does not contribute to the on budget deficit because it can only spend money that it collects from the designated payroll tax
Correct, as it were. SS spending of collected payroll taxes does not contribute to the deficit.
> or from the investment of past surpluses.
And here we part ways, with the usual sorts of questions. Where does the interest on these "investments" come from, if not from debt/deficit spending? How can a single entity (the federal government) loan money to itself, then consider that loan to be an asset?
>Great. See the above facts and admit that you are wrong.
Sorry Mark. You don't get off that easy. I'm looking for some reasoning around those facts to explain why they make me wrong. You don't seem willing to provide it yet. (Yes, I know, this response will likely cause you to do more whining about playing games, or trying to win the argument, or somesuch. I suspect that you are very unfamiliar with the idea of having to explain your reasoning, and so asking you for that reasoning comes across as unreasonable. Where I'm from, it's a requirement.) Clearly, you don't include yourself as one who wants to figure out if you're wrong about SS. :) Have you ever considered that you might be confused about how SS works?
You did pretty well until the end, there, Hap and then you did the pivot to me to avoid discussing your ideological blockage. I'm still holding out hope that someday you can make an argument without including me as part of the "supporting evidence."
If you assert that Social Security contributes to the debt and deficit, then it must follow that anyone or any entity that earns interest from the US bonds also contributes to the debt and deficit.
And to say that the T bonds have no cash value makes no sense because (as I mentioned above), the government has never failed to do so (with interest). People cash out T bonds all the time and they convert them into cash. And you're saying they don't have value? It's here where I think that Clinton Administration's report doesn't get it exactly right. There's money constantly flowing in to SS and it has no cash value?
It also doesn't recognize the unique nature of SS-a self funded entity that is paid for by a separate tax than an income tax. Income taxes, of course, do go to interest on the debt.
The whole knock on SS seems unfair when you consider this simple analogy that my wife (an accountant) shared with me. Let's say that she has 200 dollars but only needs 150 for the month. I need the extra 50 so she loans it to me with interest. The next month comes by and she has 200 but needs 250+ the 50 cents interest she charged me. I don't have it so I borrow 50.50 to pay her back. She's now contributing to my deficit?
>I'm still holding out hope that someday you can make an argument without including me as part of the "supporting evidence."
Heal theyself bril. Read the first paragraph of your first comment (and that's just the start) and let me know how that's all about SS facts and evidence instead of making it about me (us.)
>She's now contributing to my deficit?
No - not the way you described it, because you are treating you and your wife as separate entities. Seen that way, it doesn't make much sense to say that she is contributing to your deficit. However, change the analogy a bit - is she contributing to your family deficit? Yes she is. (The same separate/the same reasoning applies to a note that records that loan. If you are separate entities, a note has economic value, if you aren't, it doesn't because the family has to come up with the difference somewhere.) And that's what this entire disagreement boils down to. Does it make sense to treat SS as a separate entity from the federal government or does it not? Near as I can tell, you find this:
>It also doesn't recognize the unique nature of SS-a self funded entity that is paid for by a separate tax than an income tax.
sufficient to conclude that SS is a separate entity. I don't find that very convincing. SS and the federal government are utterly intertwined:
- SS is a creation of Congress, and Congress can change SS at any time, for any reason.
- From where does SS get its power to tax? The federal government's power to tax, of course.
- What kind of "separate entity" is required (by law) to give its surpluses to the federal government? Do you think a non-government entity could be subject to that kind of law, like a private corporation?
- What kind of "separate entity" has its very own type of T bond? As I keep pointing out to you, SS bonds are not publically traded, and are available only to SS. They are not the same as normal T bonds.
>It's here where I think that Clinton Administration's report doesn't get it exactly right. There's money constantly flowing in to SS and it has no cash value?
This statement doesn't make sense. The Clinton admin report isn't saying the money flowing into SS has no value, it's saying that the bonds held in SS have no economic value. Every single penny that SS collects is immediately spent by the federal government, either by the SS piece of it or by the Treasury piece of it. Thus, saying that one piece of the federal government owes money to another piece is immaterial to how much money the federal government has to collect to cover its obligations.
As a indicator of separate entity status:
If China loans a dollar to the US one year and is paid back the next. Is the US responsible for paying China's bills on the third year?
Alternatively in the case of SS - If SS 'loans' a dollar to the treasury one year and is 'paid' back the next - the treasury is still responsible for SS's shortfalls on the third year.
This responsibility for the others liabilities puts false the claim that the two are separate entities. They are not. Any 'loans' betwixt the two are simply internal bookkeeping and cannot be claimed as some sort of 'trust fund' or 'asset'.
How is my first comment in any way untrue? You don't like government social programs, right? If you do, then I apologize and I am wrong in making that comment.
Your recent comments and your analogy in a previous one about different departments in a corporation made me think about the time I worked for Rockwell International. Each division had its own budget and each department within each division had its own budget. Sometimes, divisions and departments would borrow from each other and the ones with the surplus (the one I was in) was always courted.
If other departments were spending more than they were taking in and were borrowing from us to make it up, that does not mean that we were contributing to the deficit. THEY were. In addition, I can assure that the money the went came in and went out of our department (and in between the various divisions and departments) had economic value. I remember a co-worker complaining a few times of how it didn't matter anyway because it was all "funny money." He got his ass chewed pretty badly soon after that.
Regardless of what you think of any of the points I've made, I can see why you would consider it all to be a part of one entity if you were looking at it from a unified budget point of view. That's not how the government looks at it nor is it the exact law of SS but if you see it as all one thing, then I think it would be more fair to say that Congress is contributing to the deficit by approving continued spending in X area and Y area.
The question about the nature of the unique T bond for SS brings with it many more questions. It's always redeemed for cash to be paid (with interest) to SS. Yet, why is it special only to SS? Does that make it more valuable or less valuable? Or something else?
>How is my first comment in any way untrue?
It's not a matter of whether it is true or not. (And it is isn't true, but I'm obviously not as enthusiastic about gov programs as you are.)
1. It is unrelated to SS and how SS works in any way, shape or form.
2. It is a subjective assessment of my bias/impartiality - as pointed out above, those things have nothing to do with whether a particular argument is true/false, or valid/invalid. In other words - stick with the argument and stop complaining about your perception of other peoples bias.
3. If your perception of my bias being relevant to the argument is fair game, then my perception of your bias is relevant to the argument too. Do you think that is likely to get anywhere when discussing a subject? ("You're a government-phobe! You're a government-phile!")
>Yet, why is it special only to SS? Does that make it more valuable or less valuable? Or something else?
I of course would argue that there is no value because the trust fund has no economic value. But the more relevant point is that because they are different than normal T bonds, they cannot be sold on the open market, like regular T bonds can. So SS can't raise money on the open market with those bonds, like they could with normal T bonds. They are the equivilent of a bookeeping note that says I paid you x dollars on x date. So I offer them as evidence that a. the trust fund has no economic value and b. SS is not meaningfully separate from the federal govt.
>were borrowing from us to make it up, that does not mean that we were contributing to the deficit. THEY were
I can sort of agree that from one perspective, Congress is the more accurate entity to blame than SS. But in that same sense, Congress is to blame for everything that isn't going well with the fed, because it's ultimately their decision. In this case, it's probably most accurate to say that the redeeming of SS's bonds is contributing to the deficit as of 2010 Whether you consider that to be SS's "fault" or not is kind of semantics at that point.
As to your Rockwell example - I would ream that guy's ass out too, because even if its in-house money, it shows up on Rockwell's books as a net debit to the company once it is spent, does it not? And the note that one department had saying it owed money to another - do you think that was listed as an asset on Rockwell's books?
A final note, which this discussion jogged my memory of. It is a time honored fraudulent scheme in the corporate world to try to obscure debts and/or assets in order to make a company look worse or better than it really is. You create a new company (usually known as a Special purpose entity), make it look separate from the parent, then transfer debts to that new company, making the parent look (falsely) golden. One of the more prominent ones of late? Enron. I say this not as a claim that the federal government is trying to do some Enron type of thing, but to point out that this notion of "are two entities separate or not" is actually a pretty important one when it comes to bookkeeping.
Nope, you're just a H8ER! H8ER!! H8ER!! And a bigot, and a racist, and a sucker of corporate cock, so that prooves you're wrong. You don't beleive in the existence of governnement, that's all there is toit.
(And it is isn't true, but I'm obviously not as enthusiastic about gov programs as you are.)
Fair enough. Then I'm wrong and I apologize. If you support some government social programs, then I'd be interested to hear about which ones and why.
So I offer them as evidence that a. the trust fund has no economic value and b.
But they are redeemed for cash which then goes out to SS participants so they do have value.
In this case, it's probably most accurate to say that the redeeming of SS's bonds is contributing to the deficit as of 2010 Whether you consider that to be SS's "fault" or not is kind of semantics at that point.
Well, that is how the law was written so as not to allow "profit," if you will. Of course, there is some and that is spent on other things.
Of course, this goes to the issue of spending and where the main fault line lies between folks like me and folks like you. Our government is always going to spend a lot of money and is likely to spend more whomever wins the White House this fall. Why? Short answer: our economy.
do you think that was listed as an asset on Rockwell's books?
It was listed as an asset to the division that I worked in and what they showed the board and their stockholders to illustrate how well they were doing. Obviously, they talked it up as being "in surplus" cash wise. Part of this was done to stimulate competition between divisions as to who could do a better job with their finances.
Post a Comment