National Debt Accelerates In 2012

Quote from Mercor:

Assets is different then cash on hand. SS has a bunch of IOU's from the treasury.
It is already upside down. We now need to pay the IOU's out of the annual budget.
More...

The fact that the government pissed away the money it borrowed from SS doesn't change the fact that SS has brought in 2.6- 3 trillion more then it has paid out
 
Quote from AK Forty Seven:


Quote from AK Forty Seven:
Social Security bankruptcy a myth
More...

Quote from Lucrum:
Social Security Faces Unfunded Liability of $8.6T, or $73,167.83 Per Household

Medicare Faces Unfunded Liability of $38.6T, or $328,404 for Each U.S. Household
Quote from AK Forty Seven:

The fact that the government pissed away the money it borrowed from SS doesn't change the fact that SS has brought in 2.6- 3 trillion more then it has paid out
More...


Then why take this thread down this road.
You know SS funds have been moved into general funds for years (remember "lockbox Gore")

Just agree that Lucrum was correct.
More...
 
Quote from Mercor:

Quote from Lucrum:
Social Security Faces Unfunded Liability of $8.6T, or $73,167.83 Per Household

Medicare Faces Unfunded Liability of $38.6T, or $328,404 for Each U.S. Household



Then why take this thread down this road.
You know SS funds have been moved into general funds for years (remember "lockbox Gore")

Just agree that Lucrum was correct.
More...

Lucrum was not correct.SS is paid for and it currently owns 2.6- 3 trillion in US Treasury bonds
 
Quote from AK Forty Seven:

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/opinion/localopinioncolumnists/social-security-bankruptcy-a-myth/



Social Security bankruptcy a myth



I had a good laugh the other day reading Murray Bass’ recent column, “Government on edge of ruin.” He started with the line, “Recent headlines include ‘Social Security and Medicare to run out of money earlier than expected,’ ” and when I did a Google search of that headline to check his sources, I got 43 results, all from his Daily Republic column.

But this story is not new. The “bankrupt” Social Security myth has been circulating for decades and currently seems to be a large part of the Republican strategy to convince voters that America is doomed unless we elect a Republican president, never mind the fact that George W. Bush was at the helm when his banker buddies caused this collapse.

In Murray’s column, he offered these frightening figures: “Unfunded liabilities include the government’s promises to pay such things as pensions, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a variety of other long-term commitments without a guaranteed source of funds to pay them. Estimates vary, but the unfunded liabilities of the federal government are somewhere between $62 trillion and $100 trillion.”

I’m not sure where the $100 trillion number came from, but the $62 trillion came from the Social Security and Medicare trustees’ reports of January 2009. The critical piece of information missing from all these right-wing scare stories is that $62 trillion is the total projected obligation that both Social Security and Medicare are expected to pay out over the next 75 years. To think that there will be no money coming into these entities over this vast period of time is downright absurd. Medicare is paid for by our federal income taxes and Social Security is funded by each worker’s paycheck deductions. We taxpaying workers of America may not meet Murray’s high standards as “a guaranteed source of funds,” but I think we are as close to that as imaginable.

So here’s the real deal: For years, Social Security has been taking in about $100 billion a year more than it pays out. If nothing is done, that annual surplus will gradually shift to a deficit as our nation ages, but Social Security currently has $2.6 trillion in assets, enough to cover their projected obligations for decades. Will it eventually have to be tweaked? Yes. Is it an “entitlement” bankrupting America or some sort of Ponzi scheme that must be scrapped or radically altered? No. Further, to brand these safety-net insurance programs “entitlements,” as the Republicans delight in doing, makes as much sense as calling your car insurance an “entitlement.”

Why has this misinformation been pushed so hard by right-wing foundations for so long? Because the people funding them, Wall Street fat cats, want more of your money. They just gutted our housing market, but they always seem to need more. If voters can be conned into having our Social Security assets invested in the stock market, those trillions become fair game for their next round of “shear the sheep.”

Remember Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security and put their assets into the stock market, just before the last crash? He said that not privatizing Social Security was his greatest failure. His statement may seem peculiar in the context of 9/11, the Iraq War and the Great Recession, but if you look at it from the viewpoint of the extremely wealthy, it makes perfect, appallingly despicable, sense.

We have no control over their malicious propaganda machines, but as you enter the voting booth, ask yourself if the bankers, corporations, Wall Street elite, right-wing foundations and those who control the media really have your best interests at heart, or their own?
More...

Social security holds no real assets as a matter of fact it's already in the red fiscally speaking.
 
Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Lucrum was not correct.SS is paid for and it currently owns 2.6- 3 trillion in US Treasury bonds
More...
ok technically they are special non-negotiable bonds.

Now if you would be so kind as to describe WHAT A BOND IS?


oh that's right you are too fucking stupid so let me help you out here.


First let's go ahead and get it straight that the US gubbermint is both the issuer and holder of the bonds in question.
Which means that yep, the govt owes this money to itself.(pardon me while I write myself a check for a billion dollars)

bond:n finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity. [1] Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, ie the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market.[2]
Thus a bond is a form of loan or IOU: the holder of the bond is the lender (creditor), the issuer of the bond is the borrower (debtor), and the coupon is the interest. Bonds provide the borrower with external funds to finance long-term investments, or, in the case of government bonds, to finance current expenditure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance)
More...

okay so how does the US treasury make good on these bonds, lets see All the options:
1)more taxes
2) more borrowing from (bond selling to) someone who actually has some cash. Of course lately that has been the Chinese but remember we have to entice them with promises of interest so we are back to square one. more taxes
3) Bernake to the rescue ,PRINT MONEY
4) DEFAULT
5)Congress does an end run and ceases ss payment structure
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), is a Supreme Court Case in which the Court upheld the Constitutionality of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act. In this Section, Congress reserved to itself the power to amend and revise the schedule of benefits.


[edit]Facts

Ephram Nestor challenged this Section after he was denied Social Security payments as a deported member of the Communist Party. He argued that a contract existed between himself and the United States government, since he had paid into the system for 19 years.
Nestor, an alien, became eligible for Social Security payments in 1955. In July 1956 he was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party from 1933 to 1939. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act provided for the termination of Social Security payments when an alien is deported for being a member of the Communist Party.
[edit]Result

The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
More...

Now continue on with your hallucinations of SS solvency IQ 47.
 
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:367652" width="360" height="293" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-7-2010/the-big-bank-theory">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top