What Social Security fund? It's already gone.

[JackRiddler]

In all the talk of Republicans wanting to plunder Social Security for the stock market, the most essential fact has been forgotten: They already plundered the entire fund for the regular federal debt. All of it. Is gone. Will never be repaid, any more than the rest of the federal debt. Bush already called it "meaningless IOUs," by which he was referring to Treasury notes of the United States. There is nothing left to privatize, unless the federal government can come up with 2.5 trillion to put back from what it took. Ha ha. The privatization debate is partly the ravings of completely deluded lunatics and free-market fanatics in denial, and no doubt partly a way to disguise the fact that, in fact, there is nothing there to privatize. It serves to confuse about what happened, because the day will one day arrive when current FICA intake no longer covers outgoing SS expenditure, and on that day everyone will acknowledge what most of the key players already know:

IT'S NOT THERE. IT WAS SPENT ALREADY TO COVER DEFICITS, MAINLY ON THE PENTAGON AND IRAQ AND INTEREST PAYMENTS ON PAST DEBT.

[Hannah Bell]

1. what's gone? you mean the SS trust fund?

[wildbilln864]

3. That trust fund has been gone for years! nt

[JackRiddler]

5. Yes. Since Reagan it's been loaned to the federal government...

to cover deficit spending.

The assumption on all sides in the debate is that this need not be mentioned, since T-bills are of course absolute gold-plus investments. (I wonder if most pundits talking about Social Security are even aware of this.)

This assumption can no longer go unconstested (more often: unspoken!). It's increasingly obvious to the world that the United States federal government is never going to pay off its debt - cannot pay off its debt. Probably the only way is to crash the dollar altogether, which is to say, make the debt worthless through hyperfinflation.

Paying back what's been borrowed from the SS fund is probably the first credit that will be defaulted upon, even before China (since the rest of the world would be very unhappy about that).

[elocs]

8. Now if I was China and saw the U.S. default on money owed to its own citizens,

I would wonder how hard it would be for them to default on the money they owe me. Default on Social Security and it's all over anyways.

[damntexdem]

14. Hear, hear -- exactly the point.

[Yupster]

48. They don't have to default on anything.

They just have to change the benefit formula.

It's been done many times before without world financial markets panicking.

[SharonAnn]

10. Since way before Reagan. The surplus is loaned to government.

[Hydra]

11. That's what they are doing

The only reason they would allow the dollar to slide the way they have is to devalue the debt.

When dollars are worth nothing, expect them to roll out the Amero and "Pay off the debts" to other nations.

China's reaction at that point should be interesting to watch. Putin will probably just laugh.

[Selatius]

32. Nope, not since Reagan. LBJ did it. It used to be SS was not counted into the General Fund.

There was a separate ledger account for Social Security apart from the General Fund. In the 1960s, with the war in Viet Nam spiraling out of control along with its costs, LBJ and the Dem leadership were trying to find ways to sugarcoat the costs of the war, so they changed the rules.

From that point forward, the surpluses that the SS Trust Fund were generating would be used to off-set the deficits that were incurred because of the tremendous cost of maintaining an occupation in South Viet Nam. Money was not actually being shifted from SS. All they were doing was using the surpluses in SS to essentially hide the terrible state of the General Fund.

[SergeyDovlatov]

38. QFT n/t

[Hannah Bell]

59. Not really true. The Trust Fund is just a place to park excess SS collections

not currently needed for payout to retirees, & by 1936
law, any excess collections HAVE to be borrowed into the
general fund in exchange for T-Bills.  

Johnson didn't set the SS tax rates, he just spent the excess
like he was supposed to, but the excesss was about the same as
in the 50s. From the 1950’s to the 80’s, the Trust Fund
balance stayed at under 200 billion in inflation-adjusted
value.

The Reagan Admin, the Greenspan "SS Reform"
committee, & Congress is TOTALLY responsible for the huge,
unnecessary TF buildup since 83.  They accelerated scheduled
SS tax increases to generate it, & once generated, it HAD
to be borrowed into the general fund. 



Performance of Social Security Trust Funds in
Inflation-Adjusted (2005) Dollars*

Year    Nominal $         Current 2005 $
       (Millions)           (Millions)

1943      4,820              55,709 
1953     18,707             132,760 
1963     20,715             129,015 
1973     44,414             199,960 
1983     24,867              48,434 
1993    378,285             507,152 
2003  1,530,764           1,611,323 
2005  1,858,660           1,856,660 

From SSA website, my calculations for the 2005
inflation-adjusted #'s.

[Yupster]

47. My guess is that congress will just

pass a new law adjusting the payout formula so you don't get as much as has been promised.

[Hannah Bell]

58. Friendly correction (& thanks for your support on the foundation post, BTW)

This is from an article I researched:

"Any surplus Social Security money, by law, must be
loaned to the government in exchange for government bonds.
That hasn’t changed since 1936.1 

The only difference in the past was, once a cushion was built
up in the Trust Fund reserve, no significant yearly surpluses
(or deficits) were allowed to accumulate. Taxes taken in were
kept in rough balance with benefits going out.2 From the
1950’s to the 80’s, the Trust Fund balance stayed at under 200
billion in inflation-adjusted value."

Performance of Social Security Trust Funds in
Inflation-Adjusted (2005) Dollars*

Year    Nominal $         Current 2005 $
       (Millions)           (Millions)

1943      4,820              55,709 
1953     18,707             132,760 
1963     20,715             129,015 
1973     44,414             199,960 
1983     24,867              48,434 
1993    378,285             507,152 
2003  1,530,764           1,611,323 
2005  1,858,660           1,856,660 

(*Social Security Administration, “Performance of Social
Security Trust Funds, 1937-2005.”)


What happened under Reagan was: they accelerated scheduled SS
tax hikes so as to generate an accelerating surplus in the
Trust Fund, which meant more that had to (by law) be borrowed
into the general budget. 

They shouldn't have collected so much surplus in the first
place, but since they did, there's nothing to do with it BUT
put it in the general fund, exactly as happens when the gov
borrows from anyone & gives them a bond in exchange.

There's no difference in this borrowing & any other
borrowing the gov does, & no difference in paying it back
& paying back any bondholder, no matter what the
right-wingers say.

The Trust Fund is about 2 trillion now.  That's 10 years of
Bush tax cuts to the top 5% of the income distribution. 
Rescinding those cuts can pay back the bulk of it over a
little longer time frame.  There's no problem with payback
unless we plunge into civil war or something.

1)  The entire TF doesn't need to be repaid in one lump sum,
but over years, 
& even using the extreme estimates, the monthly cost would
be ~$2/taxpayer.

2)  It's unlikely it will need to be repaid at all.  I don't
mean to get wonkish, but the numbers used in the media are
from the SS administration's "neutral" forecast.  

But in fact, real economic & demographic performance has
closely matched their "optimistic" forecast, &
in that scenario, SS collections (at the present rate)
continue to be MORE than needed to support retirees, & the
trust fund keeps growing. 

In other words, we're paying TOO MUCH in SS taxes, I kid you
not.  I've looked at their numbers.  

The major problem is that both parties have nurtured the idea
that there's a crisis, & most of the public believes it
since the bullshit has been bipartisan.  

There are reasons elites have nurtured the "crisis"
idea.  

1)  Some would prefer not to pay it back.  
2)  Others would like to pay it back by hiking SS taxes on the
bottom 90% rather than rescinding Bush's general budget cuts
for the top 5%.

Since they've got most of the public confused & frightened
on the issue, they may succeed in picking your pocket more -
but it's a phoney crisis.


More here if you're interested:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/8

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/1

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/4

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/5

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/6

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/7

[wildbilln864]

2. $2.5 trillion!?

Reminds me of the $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld announced was missing on 09/10/2001. :banghead:

[carlyhippy]

4. It truly makes me sick

I figured this would happen, always wanted just to put the money in my own account, I know I could have taken better care of it than the govt could, sickening....

[pitohui]

17. really, and how are your private investments doing?

because everybody else's major investments, real estate (their house) is down, their 401(K) and other equities are down (huge crash in the dow TODAY)

no the little guy CAN'T physically CAN'T do better on investments except by luck and your retirement can't be based on luck

social security is a monthly payment that can't be taken away by a bad run in the stock market, by your house being destroyed in fire or hurricane, or by some malcontent with a lawsuit -- it is the cornerstone of any safe retirement now that pensions are no more

whenever i ask those who wanted privatized accounts to tell me about their investments, i'm always entertained about how terrible their actual private investments are doing -- no owners of private apartment buildings or jet airplanes among them, just big fantasies about same

if you're so smart that you can outwit wall street, paying into social security like everybody else would not have stopped you from being fantastically wealthy -- you could have invested in other savings in all those great ideas you had

[carlyhippy]

36. well, by the looks of it, it doesn't appear that ss will be around

when I get old, so....my house will be paid for, will it be worth a bunch of money, probably not, wall street? They played with what little I have in the stock market as carelessly as the govt did with the ss, but if ss is truly "gone", the money I "invested" in ss will be zero in my pocket, at the very least I could have put that money away in a savings account and at least have something in my pocket.

I am not trying to be "fantastically wealthy", I just will want something to show for all the years that I paid into ss, with the promise that it would be here when I got old.

[Obamanaut]

28. And some folks want this same government to take over health

care.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Did they stop you from making investments?

Most folk with enough assests or income to invest do so, in addition to Social Security. Why not you? Everyone I know has personal investments and they pay into the system as well. If you want to do so, you should too, as there is nothing stopping you. Hell, even in Socialist havens like Sweden, folks have portfolios of their own. Again, why not you?

[SergeyDovlatov]

54. In a way, yes. After I payed 12.4% to SS, I have even less money to put away for my retirement

[slipslidingaway]

6. kick for later n/t

[endarkenment]

7. Our government has a constitutional obligation to honor its debts

so until we abolish that requirement congress is stuck having to make good on those trust fund notes. And they can only sort of inflate their way out of it as payouts are cola adjusted. Consequently, until the trust fund obligations are used up, ss is solvent.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. Oh, they will. They'll just print some more money until the payments

mean nothing with the hyperinflation created.

[SergeyDovlatov]

40. Not for Social Security... Terms can be adjusted by congress anytime with public outcry being

the only restriction.

See 1960 Flemming vs Nestor case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands." ... "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."

Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

[sendero]

9. It is amazing..

... how many people don't get that. There IS NO MONEY! NONE!

SS will be paid from future taxes, when there are less than 3 workers per retiree.

If you think the benefit amounts will be even half of what is paid now, you are in for a rude awakening.

[damntexdem]

13. What utter nonsense! It's there, and it will ALL be there.

Those "meaningless IOUs" are U.S. treasury notes. If they are meaningless, then so is the entire U.S. economy. Were the U.S. to default on any of its notes, the economic collapse would be so complete that Social Security would not even be an afterthought. Consider, given how much we owe to China, India, and Japan, what would be the result of ANY default on U.S. treasury notes. And we owe so much, and our economy so much of the world economy, that any U.S. default would bring down the world economy.

Nor is the FICA intake versus SS payout really an issue. That whole issue could easily be resolved by raising, or eliminating, the income cap on FICA taxes, currently at $97,500. The whole false issue is used to hide the fact that the rich pay FICA taxes on only small proportions of their income.

But what if the FICA cap is not significantly raised, then what about the later point, generally placed in the early 2040s, that Social Security will no longer have enough in the Trust Fund to pay full benefits? As your post itself underlines, this is largely a false issue, because the treasury would still pay out the benefits, even were the Trust Fund empty -- just as Trust Fund entries are now used to contribute to "balancing the budget." Let's say that the point comes, would the U.S. be paying out general funds for Social Security ad infinitum? No. The 2040-whatever scare tactics depend upon cherry-picking years for concern. The Social Security deficit projected is largely due to the bulge of we boomers moving through the age pyrammid. We will begin hitting in a few years, and the last of us will hit around 2030, followed by smaller cohorts. But by then, many of us who hit first will have been dying. By the 2050s, there won't be all that many of us left, rather many of those younger boomers (my bunch will be almost totally gone). So even if the treasury were to have to make up some Social Security, it would be for a few years at most.

True, there are issues with the future of Social Security. For one, there's population aging: the tendency for all cohorts to live longer, something too often not distinguished from the boomer phenomenon. Thus, boomers and other cohorts will tend to live to draw SS longer than have past cohorts. Futher, there is the drop in fertility, meaning less replacement with cohorts of younger workers, who will pay those FICA taxes. Such issues can be accommodated by raising the FICA tax cap, the sooner the better. Alternatively, normalizing the status of undocumented immigrants would recognize that they ARE the younger cohorts who will support us as we age; and it would bring them fully into the system of paying income, FICA, and other taxes. (As it is, undocumented workers paying FICA taxes under false or others' SS numbers make up about ten percent of the current SS surplus -- in effect, a ten percent paid in by those who will never draw it out).

Then there are the bigger issues: the loss of jobs, particularly of industrial jobs, for younger people to work at; the future health of the U.S. and world economies; and the viability of our civilization and of human life under global climate change and other threats. But, then, those are not SS problems but much-larger issues of our future. If we are brought low by them, once again, Social Security will be the least of our problems.

[JackRiddler]

18. Ahem.

Those "meaningless IOUs" are U.S. treasury notes. If they are meaningless, then so is the entire U.S. economy. Were the U.S. to default on any of its notes, the economic collapse would be so complete that Social Security would not even be an afterthought. Consider, given how much we owe to China, India, and Japan, what would be the result of ANY default on U.S. treasury notes. And we owe so much, and our economy so much of the world economy, that any U.S. default would bring down the world economy.

"Meaningless IOUs" is not me talking, that's a very famous quote from Bush in 2005, referring to US treasury notes.

All you are saying above is that the predictable future default of the United States on its unpayable national debt (or the monetization of the debt and resulting hyperfinflation, which amounts to the same thing) is so terrible that it's unthinkable.

That makes it no less predictable. As in France in the 1780s, Russia in the 1990s, and Argentina in 2002 (which defaulted on a debt that was less as a proportion of GDP than the current US debt), so too will it come to pass here, thanks to several decades of the twin deficits, with no end in sight, and the intractable economic crisis we have already embarked upon.

Nor is the FICA intake versus SS payout really an issue. That whole issue could easily be resolved by raising, or eliminating, the income cap on FICA taxes, currently at $97,500. The whole false issue is used to hide the fact that the rich pay FICA taxes on only small proportions of their income.

Agreed. This is the central distraction in the Social Security "debate." The possible future inability to finance promised SS payouts and replenish the fund via FICA can be corrected, as you say. It's not an issue that Social Security may start to go insolvent in 2041. It is an issue that the US government has already converted 2.2 trillion (2007 total, plus this year's on-budget deficit of $300 billion) from the SS fund into t-bills, and is itself nearing bankruptcy.

The Social Security fund has been spent to finance the deficit caused, not by Social Security (which has always been solvent), but by military spending, war and interest payments.

If the demographic and economic predictions don't go as projected - and they never do - there will be no fund to fall back upon because it's already been spent and will not be repaid. Bush speaks truth, again.

[Yupster]

49. In order to change the benefits paid out, the US government

doesn't have to default on anything.

All they have to do is change the benfit formula so you get half what you were promised.

No default. No panic in China. Just a new law whhich congress can pass any day it wants to.

The fact is that they will pay out whatever they feel they are able to pay out.

The trust fund and the treasury bonds really have nothing at all to do with it.

[JackRiddler]

52. I see your point...

We've been scammed all along. For 40-plus years the surplus on FICA payments over SS expenditures was simply appropriated and eaten for the other programs that bankrupted the country, the maintenance of a "Social Security Fund" was an illusion. In the future what they can pay is what they can pay out of whatever is raised in revenues, by FICA or other means. Even if they're honest and try to meet the obligations, which they are unlikely to be.

[July]

25. The fact that boomers will age and die is almost never brought up in these discussions.

So I'm glad you mentioned it.

This "problem" will be addressed in part by our deaths. Even if humans are experiencing ever-greater longevity, the simple fact is that by 2050 even the YOUNGEST boomers will be 86 years old, and only a percentage of that group will make it that far or farther and will continue dying off in subsequent years.

[JackRiddler]

27. No disagreement there.

I'm talking about the fund that supposedly exists to cover Social Security payments in the event of a FICA deficit vis a vis payments. The humonguous Social Security surplus. It's been eaten.

[Hannah Bell]

61. It's 10 years of Bush's tax cuts to the top 5%. Not a big deal.

If there's political will to raise general taxes at the top.

[JDPriestly]

15. And current Social Security payments are a pittance because

they are raised according to the inflation rate, and the actual inflation rate is far higher than claimed. Baby boomers have a big surprise coming. Many baby boomers in their 50s have provided every advantage for their children, treated their parents well, worked hard, but have very little saved. All their money is invested in their cars (which do not retain value) and homes (which are losing value). We need a national investment program to get our whole nation including each and every one of us back on our feet.

Many Americans look at their financial situation. They have a home, investments in the stock market, maybe a small business, membership in a country club, a church, or just community organizations and feel really good about themselves. What they don't realize is that the economic basis for all of those institutions is crumbling beneath them.

[pitohui]

16. no it isn't and talk like this is just handing it over to them

i've worked all my life and paid in, as has my husband, as have my parents

people are receiving social security payments right as we speak, it is in NO SENSE "already gone"

if you want to be defeatist, keep it to yourself

the money is there, if you think too much of it is in halliburton and dick cheney's pockets, the thing to do is not scream it's gone and expect my parents to lay down and die (they are too old to go back to work), the thing to do is simply remove it from the pockets of the thieves and return it to the people

get out more, there is INCREDIBLE wealth out there, there is no reason that all can't have social security in the united states

walk along the new jersey shore and look at all the million dollar cottages and then ask yourself if social security can be gone while all these summer homes exist in florida, on the north atlantic coast, in vegas, in phoenix/scottsdale, and who knows where-all

the money is not gone, it may be in criminal pockets, but it is NOT gone

there are more billionaires in this country than ever existed in all of human history, there is no reason that social security should not be handsomely funded indefinitely, all it takes is the will to admit the money is there in the deepest pockets

[JackRiddler]

19. See 18.

I'm not here to promote panic.

I should have titled this, What Social Security FUND? It's already gone.

EDIT: Title of thread was corrected. Thanks.

[pitohui]

20. yeah i saw it, if you think "bush speaks truth" god help you, i can't EOM

.

[JackRiddler]

21. Thanks for reading.

Yes, I think when he says T-bills are meaningless IOUs, he speaks truth. He's often spoken truth, starting with what we he said a few days after his selection in Dec. 2000:

This would be easier in a dictatorship, but only if I was the dictator.

[Yupster]

50. Today's payouts are coming from today's premiums

For a few more years the premiums will be larger than the payouts. There's no dispute about that, and no problem.

The part that is gone is the surplus that has supposedly been saved for the years when the premiums will be short of the projected payouts. That's the money that's gone.

[SergeyDovlatov]

55. you can always raise taxes and reduce the benefits to keep it going forever.

[Yupster]

57. Of course

Congress can raise taxes, reduce the benefits formula, or the reverse.

The point is that the social security trust fund, and the government bonds have nothing to do with anything.

Congress will do whatever it wants to and whatever it feels it is able to -- trust fund or no trust fund, bonds or no bonds.

[Cleita]

22. Maybe we could make the IOU's meaningful by impounding the

Bush and Cheney family fortunes as part of their punishment for high crimes and misdemeanors and return them to the Treasury.

[JackRiddler]

24. Nice thought.

Include co-conspirators and you might cover 1% of the total.

[Cleita]

26. Better than nothing. That's 1% ahead, however, we don't need to stop there.

I think every dollar that was profited for by Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, et al should be recouped. If Halliburton is hiding their money in Dubai, oh well, we do have a standing army near by. Better they should fight to get their country's stolen assets back than terrorize a nation that did nothing to us.

[elifino]

23. Social Security Benefits and the Language of Guarantees

Many workers believe that the Social Security benefits suggested by current law belong to them—that they have "property rights" to future payments. However, 40 years ago, the Supreme court ruled that this isn't the case: Retirees have no legal right to claim ownership over unpaid benefits. The ruling deters beneficiaries from suing the federal government if an altered benefit formula delivers payments that fall short of expectations. But it frees policymakers: Removing any guarantee that benefits will conform to expectations gives them the flexibility to change the program and address either inequities in the program's current formula or its long-term solvency.

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310232&renderforprint=1

I know it to late too shut the barn door after the horse has got out,but the money is gone now. The real increase in the cost of living is almost double what the government says it is, so if you do not have a private source of retirement funds a lot of people are going to be SOL

[Cleita]

29. If that happens, and I rely more on SS than I do my rapidly decreasing

savings that inflation is making worthless, you can be sure I will be moving my tent onto the front yard of whichever Republican elected official that I can make most uncomfortable and I'm sure I will have lots of other elderly joining me. If I find out where W* is after January 2009, I think that's where I will plant myself, just like Cindy Sheehan did in Crawford. Without AF One and his Presidential security detail, we will be harder to ignore and get rid of.

[Selatius]

30. Reinstitute the FDR-era tax code on the wealthy. If they wish to loot from us, we will take it back.

We'll just send the tax man to do it instead of them sending the salesman our way.

[DogPoundPup]

31. Don't fall for the Social Security scare

Sunday, March 30, 2008
The financial geniuses in the Bush administration still want to mess with it. And the only way they can stampede the public into doing something stupid to Social Security is to portray it as a very sick patient needing to be saved.

Economist Dean Baker has spent long years trying to save Social Security from its would-be surgeons. A founder and director of the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research, Baker continually tracks the tireless efforts to undermine confidence in the program — often helped by liberals swept up in the phony panic.

The money in the Trust Funds, Baker notes, came from the very regressive payroll tax on workers. The general funds that support the withdrawals come from the very progressive income taxes — which also cover investment income.

What should we do about Social Security?

"I would just say, 'Let's sit on this,' " Baker answers. If come 2030 Americans see problems looming, he adds, "we can do something.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004313743_froma30.html

[JackRiddler]

34. But I agree fully with this.

The Social Security "insolvency" scare is complete bullshit to distract from the historically imminent bankruptcy of the United States government, which unfortunately ate the Social Security surplus, leaving nothing in the fund but 2.5 trillion in T-bills. The crisis is not in Social Security, it is in the debt. It's really not a coincidence that the two problems are confounded, or that right wingers make up figures about what will supposedly be owed on Social Security commitments in 2050 rather than deal with the reality of what has happened NOW.

[TahitiNut]

33. Don't look now, but your savings account is "already gone" in much the same way.

This is asinine hyperbole. NO insurance reserve or savings account is buried in a mayonnaise jar ... it's out on loan.

The idiocy of this hyperbole merely serves the privateering advocates.

[JackRiddler]

35. May well be true.

Do you really think the US financial system is going to avoid a meltdown? By way of hyperinflation at best.

[TahitiNut]

37. That's a far different question and one that makes the Trust Fund comparably inconsequential.

Take this to the bank: Stop paying seniors their Social Security and every child and grandchild of a senior then sleeping on their couch will be looking for a rope to string up their congress-critters.

[JackRiddler]

39. You're right. New thread title.

What dollar? It's already gone!

[sendero]

41. Nobody is saying..

.. benefits will stop. They will just be a lot less in terms of spending power than they are now.

You cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. Our government is bankrupt.

[JackRiddler]

56. Not necessarily if you cut it 5% at a time.

[SergeyDovlatov]

45. Sure. But we owe it to ourselves.

Yes. Funds in SS trust fund are loaned to the treasury, which then spent on war and other "wise investments".
When it is time to get something out the fund, it means that SS receipts do not cover outlays and thus we need to take it out of general revenue, so it will compete for funding with the rest of the budget.

Savings account analogy does not work here, because you loan the money to yourself and then spend it.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. I agree

Hyperbole that is not helpful.

[KoKo]

42. THEN! We Call them to ACCOUNT FOR THE MISSING FUNDS!

why should we hang back because they SPENT IT ALL! ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPARATIONS!

WE should have some VOICE in this? NO? :shrug: They took MY MONEY for YEARS and it was an Investment...if they can't account for the FUNDS they LOST they are no better than some "Over the Counter" Stock Scheme that can be sued!

Let's get to it!

[Yupster]

51. So yell at congress.

Howl at the moon too.

It won't change the fact that congress spent the money and it isn't there any more.

Even hanging them all isn't going to get the money back.

[SergeyDovlatov]

53. Technically funds are there as "special issue treasury obligation"

Nothing is lost.

However, when social security administration calls upon the treasury to cash in the obligation. US treasury will need to do something to come up with the money.

Treasury options:
1. borrow money to pay it
2. get it from the general revenue

So it is not technically lost, but you don't have the money either.

[Hannah Bell]

62. 2.5 trillion = 10 years of Bush's tax cuts to the top 5%.

Rescind those, no problem.

It's not as if the whole 2.5 trillion comes due on one day.

[Hannah Bell]

63. or, alternatively, a little over 10 years of the iraq/afghan war.

[BlooInBloo]

44. Teh stupid! It BURNS!!!

[slipslidingaway]

60. Trust Fund Data

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, 1957-2007


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html