You will note the rise of the Fed's lending coincides with the fall of SS's excess revenue. Now if you want an accounting fiction, we talk about the Fed's balance sheet where we print money to buy bonds and the interest earned is returned to the Treasury. It isn't an IOU. It is a IOM(e).
It will be a problem. I wrote a piece for TheHill.com that basically says it will be a massive problem. The problem is one for the government, rather than Social Security. Social Security's problem is that as demand on government rises, political support for the system will wane. I think...
"loan" and "dad" are the emotional triggers. Stick with the reasoned arguments. Actually it is more like a brokerage sweeping available cash from customer accounts into its own repo agreements. That is what MF Global did knowing full well that the repos would not be repaid - mind you no one...
Yes, the "liberate" revenue. The revenue that was almost immediately returned to the system in the form of GF subsidies.
You don't need to understand budgeting much less be an expert on the "replacement of prior (borrowed) revenues". The repayment of bonds is about credit worthiness not...
2355555
This is simply wrong. The law says that there will be no benefits paid above the revenue collected for the system. You are aware that the whole discussion of Social Security is based on around massive benefit cuts that occur at some point triggered by lack of revenue.
We talk about...
Walk me though your thought. The bonds when they are held by person X are an investment and when the same bonds (with a put option no less) is held by someone else it is not.
The government is a fiduciary. It isn't a company at all. It has no legal obligation beyond the bonds in the system...
It started with a piece from Allen ? Smith PhD, which lead to an exchange about IOUs and marketability of assets in the Trust Fund. I said that for all of the IOUs, non-negotiable,intergovernmental accounts, fictions, and the rest the assets held by private pensions are indistinguishable from...
So you are saying that the IBM pension fund is a fiction, China's bond holdings are a fiction. Every bond is a promise to spend more money next year. These arguments go no where.
The Trust Fund has nothing to do with the costs in the GOs. The Trust Fund is simply the source of the funds...
By your standard every pension in America has no assets that can be "cashed" out. Negotiability is a red-herring. The bonds contain a put option. If the government can't repay the bonds, there wouldn't be a market for them anyway. The only thing that marketable bond would have bought is...
His piece is almost entirely unsourced. It is factually debatable.
"If the government had saved $2.7 trillion of its revenue for Social Security, during this period, it would be clearly visible in the budget numbers." That depend upon which budget you use. He is using a version of the budget...
From your quote, you do not understand how Social Security works. The $30 trillion is the gap between expected benefits AND expected revenue discounted back to the present. I have articles on these figures if you are interested.
I do not ever say that the Trust Fund is irrelevant to...
So we are going to justify HUGE by using a benchmark that is completely relevant. The Trust Fund is a reserve against unfunded liabilities of the system. By that benchmark, the trust fund is a dime of solution for every dollar of problem. That doesn't sound HUGE to me, or huge, or even large...
Nice charts. Yes productivity has risen which is why Social Security hasn't imploded already. The difference between this chart and the blah-blah-blah about # of workers is that this chart is relevant, and the blah-blah-blah is just the excuse that politicians pass off on voters who aren't...