get ready for 4 more years of hate in congress

[JimJimmers]

Thanks for that last link! It says exactly what I feared. "What happens to the funds that are not used immediately to pay benefits? By law, the funds are invested in special-issue Treasury securities that earn interest. In effect, the funds are loaned to the Treasury, which borrows the money just as it borrows money when it sells Treasury securities to the public. In other words, the surplus money collected by Social Security helps pay for the rest of the government. In return for the funds it loans to the government, the trust funds receive Treasury securities bearing a market rate of interest. The average interest rate on the portfolio held by the Social Security trust fund was about 4.4 percent in 2011."

It goes on to say that the IOU's are not worthless, because they're "backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government". This is an admittance of the fact that the social security money had been "borrowed" from the trust fund, just as I thought. I appreciate the link.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Thanks for that last link! It says exactly what I feared. "What happens to the funds that are not used immediately to pay benefits? By law, the funds are invested in special-issue Treasury securities that earn interest. ...

I'm not sure why this would "frighten" you. What would you rather the government do with the money? Stuff it in a mattress somewhere, where it will lose value rather than gain it? (Hey, Jesus even told a parable about that, and the US government is doing exactly what "the good servant" does.)

"The average interest rate on the portfolio held by the Social Security trust fund was about 4.4 percent in 2011."

Wow, I didn't realize it was that high. I knew they had out-performed the average rate, but that's actually quite impressive.

Do you have any idea how most trust funds performed in 2011? Care to venture (no pun intended) a guess? I'll give you a hint: it's WAY less than 4.4%

Seriously, I don't know what your concern is. This is exactly what should be done with the money. In a capitalist society, at least, this is what makes the economy hum. I suppose in a communist-based economy we might expect some other form of government funding -- my education in economics does not include much past the basic of non-capitalist-based systems, so I honestly don't know what other choices are out there. But when you put your money in the bank, this is the same thing they do with it. Or when you get a pension or 401(k), or whatever. Only, you don't have nearly the security plus growth potential that the US government has, just on the basis of being an individual rather than the US government.

 

[JimJimmers]

Wow, I didn't realize it was that high. I knew they had out-performed the average rate, but that's actually quite impressive.

Do you have any idea how most trust funds performed in 2011? Care to venture (no pun intended) a guess? I'll give you a hint: it's WAY less than 4.4%

Seriously, I don't know what your concern is.

20% wouldn't impress me, because it's not real money. To cash in the securities, funds will have to be raised to cover them. You can't spend money twice.

My concern is that they will just print money to cover the lack of funds. This is what is being done right now with quantitative easing.

There are three major differences between Bernie Madoff and Uncle Sam.

One is that Madoff would be arrested if he had tried to counterfeit money.

The second is participation in Madoff's fund was voluntary.

The third is that Madoff lied about what was being done with the money, Uncle Sam is merely obfuscating and using accounting tricks to try and fool people.


I have yet to see anyone explain why I am forced to participate in social security, lessening my theoretical copper pile for results that they in no way are required to give me, according to The Supreme Court. (Flemming vs. Nestor)

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

There are three major differences between Bernie Madoff and Uncle Sam.

One is that Madoff would be arrested if he had tried to counterfeit money.

You may be confused about what the meaning of the word "counterfeit" is. First of all, it is a noun. To my knowledge, it is not a verb, though these days everyone seems to be verbing words, so whatever.

Secondly, in the US, if you are not authorized by the US to print money and you print it, you are guilty of counterfeit. So bringing this up is kinda like me saying "The only difference between me and Miss America is that I didn't win the pageant."

Thirdly, as Yoda would say, "There is no try. Do or do not." I'm not sure how Madoff, or anyone else for that matter, could "try" to print counterfeit money. I guess they could set up the printing press and get the special paper and then something else went wrong so they couldn't actually do it.

Now, if you meant something like, "Madoff would be arrested if he had printed counterfeit money and was caught doing it," well, yes. But he was arrested anyway, so I'm not quite sure what your point is.

The second is participation in Madoff's fund was voluntary.

Yes. Because Madoff is not the government.

Kinda like you can send a package by UPS or Fed Ex or by the US Postal Service, but you can only send a letter by U. S. Mail. The government does have a monopoly on some things.

The third is that Madoff lied about what was being done with the money, Uncle Sam is merely obfuscating and using accounting tricks to try and fool people.

There is no obfuscation to anyone who has a clue how banking works. There are no accounting "tricks" being used -- unless, of course, you consider economics a "trick," and the US Treasury is not purposely trying to fool anyone. That there are idiots and fools who don't understand basic economics is not the fault of the U.S. government; at least not the fault of the financial branch of the government.

I have yet to see anyone explain why I am forced to participate in social security, lessening my theoretical copper pile for results that they in no way are required to give me, according to The Supreme Court. (Flemming vs. Nestor)

Because part of being a member of a civilized society is paying taxes. Always has been, always will be.

 

[JimJimmers]

You may be confused about what the meaning of the word "counterfeit" is. First of all, it is a noun. To my knowledge, it is not a verb, though these days everyone seems to be verbing words, so whatever.

I am not confused about the meaning of the word counterfeit. It is more of a verb than 'verbing' is, for sure, I hope you were trying to be ironic.

Secondly, in the US, if you are not authorized by the US to print money and you print it, you are guilty of counterfeit. So bringing this up is kinda like me saying "The only difference between me and Miss America is that I didn't win the pageant."

You totally missed my point. I don't object to the U.S. printing money, it is almost unarguably Constitutional. That doesn't mean that they should be able to just print money ad infinitum though, I consider quantitative easing as close to counterfeiting as the government can get. It is legal, but that doesn't make it right. Let's not forget when the Constitution was written, they were printing gold certificates.

Thirdly, as Yoda would say, "There is no try. Do or do not." I'm not sure how Madoff, or anyone else for that matter, could "try" to print counterfeit money. I guess they could set up the printing press and get the special paper and then something else went wrong so they couldn't actually do it.

Now, if you meant something like, "Madoff would be arrested if he had printed counterfeit money and was caught doing it," well, yes. But he was arrested anyway, so I'm not quite sure what your point is.

I forgive you for misquoting Yoda.

Yes. Because Madoff is not the government.

Kinda like you can send a package by UPS or Fed Ex or by the US Postal Service, but you can only send a letter by U. S. Mail. The government does have a monopoly on some things.

Actually not true, urgent documents can be delivered by UPS et al. As far as them having a monopoly on certain things, yes they do. And we should be careful that they don't grasp too much power.

There is no obfuscation to anyone who has a clue how banking works. There are no accounting "tricks" being used -- unless, of course, you consider economics a "trick," and the US Treasury is not purposely trying to fool anyone. That there are idiots and fools who don't understand basic economics is not the fault of the U.S. government; at least not the fault of the financial branch of the government.

Interesting. I was wondering when the name-calling would start.

At first you said "There are billions of dollars in that fund," Then when I showed that to be false, you said, "What would you rather the government do with the money? Stuff it in a mattress somewhere, where it will lose value rather than gain it?" So yes, to anyone who has a clue how banking works, they can see through it. But for cheerleaders of runaway monetary policy, people who call others idiots and fools for trying to get to the truth behind things, they can get fooled quite easily.

Since you understand economics so well, (yet evidently have never heard of 'counterfeiters'?) I'd love to hear your explanation as to how the treasury securities are going to be turned back into cash. A treasury security is an acknowledgement of government debt, it doesn't take a degree to understand that. If you're fine with the U.S. printing the money to cover the spent funds, by all means just say so, although that raises the question of why they don't simply print the money to cover the S.S. checks and save everyone a lot of hassle.

Because part of being a member of a civilized society is paying taxes. Always has been, always will be.

The part that bothers me is the way they make it sound like they're doing me a favor.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I am not confused about the meaning of the word counterfeit. It is more of a verb than 'verbing' is, for sure, I hope you were trying to be ironic.

I was.

At first you said "There are billions of dollars in that fund," Then when I showed that to be false.....

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?

You showed that to be false? I don't think so. You showed that you don't understand what a fund is, because you think just because the money is invested (collecting interest) rather than sitting in some vault somewhere collecting dust, it "doesn't exist." You seem to be mistaken that piece of paper with Washington's picture, or Lincoln's, or Jefferson's, or even Benjamin Franklin's, is a thing of intrinsic value. Paper and coin has no value except what we put on it. A $1 bill is not "a dollar," but a note worth one dollar. I can purchase one dollar's worth of goods with that paper note, but that's not the only way to purchase things. I can purchase goods with other goods worth one dollar (trade) or with electrons worth one dollar (EFT). Whether the money is "printed" or not does not matter.

The Social Security fund is not bankrupt. It has billions of dollars in it. The fact that those billions of dollars are invested in various treasury bonds does not diminish their value. It diminishes their liquidity -- and in an emergency or crisis liquidity does play a part in value. But unless you know something that only you and the Mayans know, there really is not any major catastrophe capable of devaluing these kinds of funds the way you're talking about.

, you said, "What would you rather the government do with the money? Stuff it in a mattress somewhere, where it will lose value rather than gain it?" So yes, to anyone who has a clue how banking works, they can see through it.

And yet you're still confused.

Since you understand economics so well, (yet evidently have never heard of 'counterfeiters'?)

"counterfeiters" is also a noun, though it does show the use of the word as a verb ("one who counterfeits"). A quick look in the OED shows that indeed, the word has been used as a verb for some years now, though that is not its preferred use.

Quick question for you:

Do you have any money in any bank account?

If so, do you realize that they may or may not actually have all of your money in liquid or "cash" form? They take the $100 that you deposit, and then lend it to someone else at that bank who needs a loan. They collect interest on that loan, and that's how they make money and stay in business.

This is exactly what the government is doing. It's called capitalism, and its been going on for centuries. It is not a ponzi scheme or a trick or anything. It's Generally Accepted Accounting Practices 101, and there's absolutely nothing fishy or underhanded about it.

When I was younger, I thought it seemed unfair. I was a communist then, and anyone making money off of just having money seemed unfair. I guess that was a phase I grew out of, because I like earning interest now.

If you're fine with the U.S. printing the money to cover the spent funds, by all means just say so,

No, that would not be a good idea. That's what started WWII.

The part that bothers me is the way they make it sound like they're doing me a favor.

Who are "they," and what, exactly, have "they" said that you somehow interpret as "making it sound like they're doing you a favor"?

It's a tax. You know, I wasn't alive when SS started. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Roosevelt tried to pass it off as a "penalty" or some such, and some congressional leaders tried to claim that was unconstitutional, and took it to the supreme court, and the supreme court said, "Well, if it were a 'penalty' it would be, but it's a tax, and the government has every right to tax its people, so shut up and deal with it."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[JimJimmers]

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?

You showed that to be false? I don't think so. You showed that you don't understand what a fund is, because you think just because the money is invested (collecting interest) rather than sitting in some vault somewhere collecting dust, it "doesn't exist." You seem to be mistaken that piece of paper with Washington's picture, or Lincoln's, or Jefferson's, or even Benjamin Franklin's, is a thing of intrinsic value. Paper and coin has no value except what we put on it. A $1 bill is not "a dollar," but a note worth one dollar. I can purchase one dollar's worth of goods with that paper note, but that's not the only way to purchase things. I can purchase goods with other goods worth one dollar (trade) or with electrons worth one dollar (EFT). Whether the money is "printed" or not does not matter.

I fully understand that a dollar has no intrinsic value. Why do you think I brought up the gold standard?

"counterfeiters" is also a noun, though it does show the use of the word as a verb ("one who counterfeits"). A quick look in the OED shows that indeed, the word has been used as a verb for some years now, though that is not its preferred use.

Congratulations, that's the most revolting way I have ever seen someone say "I was wrong."

Quick question for you:

Do you have any money in any bank account?

If so, do you realize that they may or may not actually have all of your money in liquid or "cash" form? They take the $100 that you deposit, and then lend it to someone else at that bank who needs a loan. They collect interest on that loan, and that's how they make money and stay in business.

This is exactly what the government is doing. It's called capitalism, and its been going on for centuries. It is not a ponzi scheme or a trick or anything. It's Generally Accepted Accounting Practices 101, and there's absolutely nothing fishy or underhanded about it.

Ridiculous. To answer your condescending question, I have money in a bank account, and am aware of how they are able to pay me interest. You asked before what I wanted them to do with the money, and the answer is simple. Not confiscate it from me in the first place, and repeal the sixteenth amendment.

In a parallel universe where the government works for us and actually is a force for good, I would suggest the money be invested in the federal student loan program. What is currently happening is just dumping money into the general fund where it has been spent, in part, on purchasing pictures of child pornography.

Your inaccurate and naive false comparison would only be accurate if this bank you speak of had been operating at a loss for the last 60 years, owed a Chinese bank 4 months of gross income, and was printing money to cover its interest payments. You ignored my statement about quantitative easing, don't think I didn't notice.

I wouldn't put my money in this bank.

No, that would not be a good idea. That's what started WWII.

Then you have no idea what's going on. You really should pick up a book and learn something about quantitative easing. (Also, very few people attribute the cause of the Second World War to only one factor, but that's beside the point.)

Who are "they," and what, exactly, have "they" said that you somehow interpret as "making it sound like they're doing you a favor"?

It's a tax. You know, I wasn't alive when SS started. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Roosevelt tried to pass it off as a "penalty" or some such, and some congressional leaders tried to claim that was unconstitutional, and took it to the supreme court, and the supreme court said, "Well, if it were a 'penalty' it would be, but it's a tax, and the government has every right to tax its people, so shut up and deal with it."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The Social Security Administration has been running commercials about how wonderful their program is. They never mention the part about it being a tax from which we receive no guaranteed funds.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I fully understand that a dollar has no intrinsic value. Why do you think I brought up the gold standard?

Glad to hear it. The way you were describing the SS system, it seemed like you didn't realize this was just standard capitalism. I'm glad to see you do understand, and that your only real problem with it is that it is "forced" on Americans (the way all taxes are) rather than an option, like most retirement plans are through one's place of employment or individually.

In a parallel universe where the government works for us and actually is a force for good, I would suggest the money be invested in the federal student loan program.

First of all, let me say this is a great idea.

Unfortunately, it is not an original idea, and is in fact already happening. I'll agree with you that it isn't happening enough. Perhaps you've heard of "Pell Grants" and other government-funded student loans? Yes, I'd like to see a larger portion of our budget go there, and less go into military. That's what I tell my 2 senators and my 1 representative every time I get the chance. That's called being an active citizen, being part of the democratic process.

on purchasing pictures of child pornography.

Can you please provide a source for this story?

You ignored my statement about quantitative easing, don't think I didn't notice.

I had nothing to say to it. I'm not sure what I should have said, or what good "noticing" the fact that I had nothing to say about it does you. Do you feel proud now that you noticed I had nothing to say about QE?

(Also, very few people attribute the cause of the Second World War to only one factor, but that's beside the point.)

Good point. I will give you that. Printing money is indeed only one of many factors.

 

[JimJimmers]

I feel this conversation is unprofitable, I have decided to discontinue it. Here's the link: public-funding-of-controversial-art