http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/03/note-to-editorialists-social-security-has-fuck-all-to-do-with-the-budget-deficit Comments On: Note to Editorialists: Social Security Has Fuck All to Do With the Budget Deficit by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
It doesn't matter whether SS is "on budget" or "off budget." It has never once made a bit of difference. SS is a geberal obligation of the federal government, just like anything else. For about 30 years after 1983, FICA tax receipts exceeded SS and Medicare spending, and very soon, the reverse will occur. This has no fiscal importance; it's entirely a matter of politics.

When Goldy claims there's a trust fund, he's leaning on a political fiction. He knows this, but would rather bullshit you and other gullible "progressive" readers. This is an I.Q. test, and you're flunking it.
Posted by Mister G]]> Mon, 07 Jan 2013 07:19:28 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatme…

I definitely learned something from this about the Unified Budget. Firstly, it was the Johnson Administration that cooked it up, not Reagan. My bad. And... Social Security and Medicare were supposedly taken off-budget in 1990, completely, which makes it even more irritating that conservative maroons/dragoons are trying to suck it back into the picture.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:13:08 -0800 The Stranger
-"SS is an entitlement," as in "We're gonna have to rein in these entitlements,"
-"Everyone's gotta give some...we all have to have skin in the game,"
-"compromising" on SS is the "adult" thing to do...

It's time for all of us to push back on pundits and pols who prevaricate and propagandize: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Persona…
Posted by raisinghellforagoodcause]]> Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:50:23 -0800 The Stranger
Regardless of what categories are listed in the reports, the federal budget is and always has been a unified budget. It is quite literally impossible to run any other way, from a financial perspective. You can believe in trust funds, aliens, and unicorns if you want to, just like Sarah Palin, but that will not change the reality.
Posted by Mister G]]> Sat, 05 Jan 2013 12:10:53 -0800 The Stranger
But hey, you're a "progressive" who is no smarter or less likely to believe in faith-based mythology than Sarah Palin is. So yeah, there's a vault. The trust fund is there, right along with a whole family of aliens who landed at Roswell. And a unicorn!
Posted by Mister G]]> Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:38:19 -0800 The Stranger
It's 2.6 Trillion dollars. It's accounted for. It's guaranteed. The non-marketable securities are redeemable as needed by the agency, at their current value. They don't fluctuate like marketable securities (which bounce around based on current yield vs. original yield to maturity). You wouldn't want to give an agency bonds that get sold into the market anyway because they'd depress the public market for the marketable securities when they sold them, and also because the agencies shouldn't have to accept the dealer spread. In fact, these work exactly like Savings Bonds. The value never goes down due to market conditions, only up. Principal plus interest, like a bank account.

The only bad thing that could happen to that trust fund is "Social Security Reform," which would be designed to steal a huge portion of it and put it back into the general treasury so Congress wouldn't have to pay it back to the Social Security Administration.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 21:02:10 -0800 The Stranger
You know that worker to retiree ratio? It's bullshit. It's not workers to retirees that matter. It's working incomes to retiree benefits that matter. If the wingnuts who are trying to scare everyone about Social Security were to look at the, they'd see a very different picture. Again, why the liberals never point any of this out is mysterious, unless of course you realize that the only people in America who are just as incompetent as the conservatives and the Republicans are the liberals and the Democrats.
Posted by Mister G]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:06:50 -0800 The Stranger
The so-called "trust fund" is artful political fiction intended to nail down bedrock political support by implying the existence of some bank account, or its equivalent, where "my Social Security conrtibutions" sit. This has never been true, and in fact it never could have been true because of the amounts of money involved.

It is impossible to set aside trillions of dollars in a separate account. It has to go somewhere, just as bank balances and mutual fund balances have to go somewhere. There is no vault where the money sits. In the case of the mythical Social Security "trust fund," it is "invested" in non-marketable Treasurys that can't even be held by any other person or entity.

The government "owes" that money to itself, which means that Social Security payments come from the same budget that everything else comes from. Same goes for the regressive payroll taxes. The fact that the government publishes FICA revenues and expenses means nothing. The same is true for the other so-called trust funds, like the highway trust fund. They are nothing but political devices, with no economic or fiscal meaning.

It's like the shadow entries I used to make in my checkbook to "save" money for Christmas. I'd "reduce" my checking account balances to "hide" my Christmas cash, which was a joke seeing as how I balanced it every month anyway, and would have to add back the "hidden" balance. That was a mental trick, or an attempt at one. The trust funds are mental tricks, more artfully constructed than my shadow balances were.

The FICA increases as part of the 1983 deal between Reagan and the Democrats had nothing at all to do with Social Security. That deal was all about filling the hole left by Reagan's tax cuts. The Republicans couldn't bring themselves to admit directly that "the Laffer Curve" was a joke, so they disguised it as "shoring up Social Security." The Democrats went along with the fiction because it was the only way they could get a tax increase out of Reagan.

I think you know all of this, Goldy, but are just polishing the old turd and putting it out there. By the way, so you or your brain-damaged "progressive" fans will know it, I am 1,000% in favor of keeping Social Security benefits as they are, untouched. What I won't do, though, is swallow the "trust fund" bullshit. Now is that articulate enough for you?

I'll welcome your reply, because this is one of those subjects that I had to know as part of my job at one point, along with a whole lot more about federal government finances. Everyone in politics tells whoppers, but I absolutely, positively assure you that the people who really run the show in Washington, D.C. know how it actually works, and wouldn't hesitate to put the ol' stamp of approval on what I just wrote, minus the invective.


Posted by Mister G]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:00:36 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Goldy]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:36:40 -0800 The Stranger Let's be clear: Social Security is entirely off-budget, solely paid for through a dedicated payroll tax.

Either you are a complete idiot, or a smarmy liar.
Posted by Mister G]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:29:00 -0800 The Stranger Thanks, Goldy, and this is such a nonsensical red herring, and useless topic constantly trotted out by the neocons, the super-rich and every financial fraudster out there.

Just prior to going after Social Security, the banksters founded a global exchange for the trading of US Treasuries (logical, given the number of Treasuries placed in the SS Fund to pay off the interest on the debt, and the double-whammy that Treasury Notes, Bonds and Bills are treated the same as currench, or hard cash, under capital reserve requirements with regard to the banking system: they can be used as collateral for pretty much everything, including speculation on various other exchanges.

[Sidebar: and when I hear some talking twat on CNN, or some Foxtard, etc., or some douchetard on CNBC, etc., make such an outrageous statement or bald-faced lie on Soc. Sec. as a cause of the debt or deficit, when clearing those financial fraudster billionaires today are responsible for the vast majority of American debt.

AIG, Magnetar Capital, Ambac, MBIA, etc., etc., etc .......

Articles of interest:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world…

http://hongpong.com/archives/2012/12/31/…

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fraud-money…

Posted by sgt_doom]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:51:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Cato the Younger Younger]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:30:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by floater]]> Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:50:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sarah70]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:09:57 -0800 The Stranger this argument:

Instead of dumping the responsibility to be savvy investors on individuals, along with all the inefficiencies that causes, why not just allow the SSA to hire portfolio managers, to invest the surplus for maximum return on behalf of future retirees, instead of forcing them to buy non-negotiable Treasury securities? (Of course, what would amount to a new sovereign wealth fund of that magnitude would be a monster that could move, or even own, markets.) Can you picture a $2.6 Trillion hedge fund? Now that could generate some serious returns for all future retirees! Everyone a winner!
Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:11:24 -0800 The Stranger Posted by bareboards]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:38:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by auntie jim]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:20:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Art Hill]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:20:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by dirac]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:09:54 -0800 The Stranger
really?
Posted by ...good one.]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:33:27 -0800 The Stranger
Kinda like how we've never heard that dropping the age restriction on Medicare instantaneously solves the health "insurance" crisis.
Posted by Original Andrew]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:24:37 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:21:38 -0800 The Stranger
so.

You think productivity will rise enough that two workers will be able to support each retiree?

really?

did the easter bunny tell you that?

have you noticed how much less the rising generation of workers make ?

when they finally leave mom's basement at 35?

but go ahead, wish away the effects of demographics.

ask Japan what happens when a society quits having enough babies.

and tell us again how sterile homosexual pairings are JUST AS GOOD as Traditional Heterosexual Marriage?

and while you are spinning bedtime fairy tales tell us again how single uneducated teens having babies are JUST AS GOOD as Traditional Heterosexual Marriage?

you deserve the future that looms ahead. asshole.

your daughter does not.


Posted by next time don't bother, maggot]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:19:06 -0800 The Stranger
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/12…

But for some reason too many progressives give Obama a pass and keep pretending that he's not an active participant in the movement to gut Social Security. So go ahead, criticize the Seattle Times for mis-informing its readers. Lord knows they deserve it. But realize the only reason they're even talking about Social Security is because of Obama.
Posted by screed]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:09:27 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ross]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:59 -0800 The Stranger