WashingtonPost: Social Security, the trust fund and funny money

[twa]

Oh sure , raise the rate, cut the benefits and delay when I receive benefits

Sure wish I was on the narrow end of this pyramid

[chipwhich]

it all goes into the social security trust by law, or goes to pay for social security overhead.

I know where it goes. So they have a cash stash in there? Just trying to flush out where the cash ends up.

Because the solvency of the fund is based upon continued contributions. If you do away with the continued contributions you destroy the fund.

Well the real reason is because if you gave a portion of money to peoples personal accounts then control of the money is lessened. Plus it breaks the scheme known as the SSTF.

[PeterMP]

Oh sure , raise the rate, cut the benefits and delay when I receive benefits

Sure wish I was on the narrow end of this pyramid

Have more kids.

[twa]

Have more kids.

Why do you think I oppose abortion?.... somebody's gotta pay for my old age

Young people today with their game consoles,cell phones and 22' rims and wanting free contraceptives ....Slackers....get busy working and making babies .

[DeanCollins]

the answer is simple, end government and military retirement payments

[DeanCollins]

/Thread awesome!

[Hubbs]

Actually, I felt that his post was funny, and was satire.

I think he even succeeded in being funny. I laughed.

(And, frankly, this thread could use a good dose of funny. Like a serious, US Government issue sized dose of funny.)

Frankly, Your use of the word "troll"? That, I don't find funny.

Just my personal, and all that.

First of all, I need to thank you, for both laughing and seeing that my lame attempts at comedy were, in fact, lame attempts at comedy. Seems to me that most political threads could use a little defusing.

That said, I was going for the same sort of angle that Colbert goes for when he asks for an Emmy. In other words, he makes some jokes, but at the end of the day, there's sort of a "But seriously, you should really give me an Emmy" vibe.

In this case, I wanted there to be a "But seriously, I really have no idea why you're continuing to make your argument" vibe.

I assume by your lack of dispute that you don't disagree with my statements about the trust fund's "interest income" being irrelevant on the large scale, and similarly that you don't disagree that the trust fund doesn't affect the retirement age, nor does it affect benefits, nor does it affect debt held by the public, all in terms of the super-duper-important contrast to what those numbers would be if the trust fund didn't exist in the first place. So I ask, again... what in the world are you fighting for? Are you seriously campaigning to somehow "force" other ES members to swap "the SS trust fund doesn't exist" with "the SS trust fund doesn't exist for any significant purpose or really even any meaningful technicality, other than the fact that Larry wants me to have to write all of this out every single time I post in any thread that has to do with Social Security, and therefore I'm doing that because otherwise we would spend the next 27 pages arguing about whether or not a certain number in a certain Excel spreadsheet meets our arbitrary standards of relevance for the purposes of the general finances of the United States government"? What are you trying to save? What cause are you fighting for here?

[Hubbs]

Could Larry and Chipwich take their back and forth to PM. We get it.

I actually disagree, I think this stuff needs to be settled once and for all in public, because it seems that we can't have a conversation about Social Security in the Tailgate without this dispute coming up. It needs to reach a conclusion.

[Hubbs]

Bumping for an answer....

[chipwhich]

Bumping for an answer....

What answer do you want? Larry wont allow it to be answered because he insists on playing semantic games.

When trying to enter into any discussion with him about SS, he always goes down the t-bill rat hole, which we all get.

[Larry]

First of all, I need to thank you, for both laughing and seeing that my lame attempts at comedy were, in fact, lame attempts at comedy. Seems to me that most political threads could use a little defusing.

That said, I was going for the same sort of angle that Colbert goes for when he asks for an Emmy. In other words, he makes some jokes, but at the end of the day, there's sort of a "But seriously, you should really give me an Emmy" vibe.

In this case, I wanted there to be a "But seriously, I really have no idea why you're continuing to make your argument" vibe.

I assume by your lack of dispute that you don't disagree with my statements about the trust fund's "interest income" being irrelevant on the large scale, and similarly that you don't disagree that the trust fund doesn't affect the retirement age, nor does it affect benefits, nor does it affect debt held by the public, all in terms of the super-duper-important contrast to what those numbers would be if the trust fund didn't exist in the first place. So I ask, again... what in the world are you fighting for? Are you seriously campaigning to somehow "force" other ES members to swap "the SS trust fund doesn't exist" with "the SS trust fund doesn't exist for any significant purpose or really even any meaningful technicality, other than the fact that Larry wants me to have to write all of this out every single time I post in any thread that has to do with Social Security, and therefore I'm doing that because otherwise we would spend the next 27 pages arguing about whether or not a certain number in a certain Excel spreadsheet meets our arbitrary standards of relevance for the purposes of the general finances of the United States government"? What are you trying to save? What cause are you fighting for here?

Sorry. Your "question" seems to actually be about a dozen claims, and I really didn't want to try to go hrough your oost, extract each individual sentance, and insert responses between each of them.

Instead, I'll try to make a brief, generic, response to what I think is the iverall theme of your post.

The existence of them trust fund is important for the exact same reason why thre is an attempt to deny its existence. It's politics by lying.

You are correct. The government could eliminate SS completely, tomorrow, by a simple majority vote. The existence of the trust fund does not in any way prevent that.

However, the trust fund prevents the government from doing that AND CLAIMING THAT IT DID IT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY MONEY. (Well, it prevents the claim from being TRUE. As we're seeing in this very thread, there are lots of people who are willing to claim it, when it isn't true).

We've been seeing, for years, an organized, systematic attempt, for political reasons, to try to convince people that "the full faith and credit of the United States", the ONLY thing in our entire government which the US Constitution specifically states that the government MUST do (as opposed to "has the power to do, if it chooses"), really isn't that important, and it's just an accounting trick, and worthless pieces of paper, and all of the other flat out lies that are being shoveled.

In short, ONE of the reasons why I insist on pointing out the FACT that the trust fund exists, EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT SOMEONE SPOUTS A BS CLAIM OF WHY IT SUPPOSEDLY DOESNT, is exactly the same reason why they keep spouting BS claims of why it supposedly doesn't exist.

(Another reason is because I have a highly developed response to BS arguments, and try to point out that they are BS every time they're made. I'm funny that way. I think that the truth is important).

(I have this mythological belief that the truth has some power left. That, if lies and spin are met with truth often enough, that the truth will win, and the lies and spin will lose. Or, at least, will eventually get tired of being embarrassed, and will have the shame to hide itself).

But, back to what I think is the overall question you're asking.

There is an attempt to push a lie. To claim that all the money, that has been taken from people over their lives, money which has been borrowed, while making the most solemn promise that can be made in our entire society, that, well, we don't really need to keep that promise. After all, what's so important about a promise that's made to yourself, anyway?

And, EVERY TIME THAT LIE US PUSHED, I'm going to point out that it's a lie.

----------

Now, a question for you.

How come you're questioning the motives of the person who's RESPONDING to the lies and the spin, and not the people who are pushing them?

Why aren't you questioning the motives of the person who's spent a week pointing out that the government doesn't have the money to redeem t-bills, IF THE T-BILLS ARE OWNED BY SS (but who STILL won't admit that that statement applies to all t-bills)?

How come you aren't questioning the motives of the people (including you) who are fighting so hard to claim that the government DOESN'T owe that money to SS?

[chipwhich]

Larry you are misrepresenting what I said.

And nobody said the trust fund doesn't exist.

Stop shouting and listen and communicate.

You might rethink your position, meditate in this thread and come back when you aren't yelling.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...ruthiness-quot

[Larry]

deleted post.

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 10:24 AM ----------

Larry you are misrepresenting what I said.

And nobody said the trust fund doesn't exist.

Stop shouting and listen and communicate.

You might rethink your position, meditate in this thread and come back when you aren't yelling.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...ruthiness-quot

You know, there's a simple solution, if you think people are misrepresenting your point.

STATE YOUR POINT.

[Hubbs]

Sorry. Your "question" seems to actually be about a dozen claims, and I really didn't want to try to go hrough your oost, extract each individual sentance, and insert responses between each of them.

Instead, I'll try to make a brief, generic, response to what I think is the iverall theme of your post.

The existence of them trust fund is important for the exact same reason why thre is an attempt to deny its existence. It's politics by lying.

You are correct. The government could eliminate SS completely, tomorrow, by a simple majority vote. The existence of the trust fund does not in any way prevent that.

However, the trust fund prevents the government from doing that AND CLAIMING THAT IT DID IT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY MONEY. (Well, it prevents the claim from being TRUE. As we're seeing in this very thread, there are lots of people who are willing to claim it, when it isn't true).

We've been seeing, for years, an organized, systematic attempt, for political reasons, to try to convince people that "the full faith and credit of the United States", the ONLY thing in our entire government which the US Constitution specifically states that the government MUST do (as opposed to "has the power to do, if it chooses"), really isn't that important, and it's just an accounting trick, and worthless pieces of paper, and all of the other flat out lies that are being shoveled.

In short, ONE of the reasons why I insist on pointing out the FACT that the trust fund exists, EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT SOMEONE SPOUTS A BS CLAIM OF WHY IT SUPPOSEDLY DOESNT, is exactly the same reason why they keep spouting BS claims of why it supposedly doesn't exist.

(Another reason is because I have a highly developed response to BS arguments, and try to point out that they are BS every time they're made. I'm funny that way. I think that the truth is important).

(I have this mythological belief that the truth has some power left. That, if lies and spin are met with truth often enough, that the truth will win, and the lies and spin will lose. Or, at least, will eventually get tired of being embarrassed, and will have the shame to hide itself).

But, back to what I think is the overall question you're asking.

There is an attempt to push a lie. To claim that all the money, that has been taken from people over their lives, money which has been borrowed, while making the most solemn promise that can be made in our entire society, that, well, we don't really need to keep that promise. After all, what's so important about a promise that's made to yourself, anyway?

And, EVERY TIME THAT LIE US PUSHED, I'm going to point out that it's a lie.

----------

Now, a question for you.

I see that we've introduced capital letters into the conversation.

I also see that we've introduced an assumption of my particular motivations into the conversation. As in, you seem to be making some enormous assumptions about what motivates me to say that the "trust fund" is an accounting gimmick. You appear to be assuming that I'm saying that it's an accounting gimmick because I'm just that desperate to "lie" about said accounting gimmick in order to achieve a larger political point, when I'm not. In fact, the opposite is true.

As to your questions...

How come you're questioning the motives of the person who's RESPONDING to the lies and the spin, and not the people who are pushing them?

Because I'm pointing out that an entity "owing itself" trillions of dollars is fundamentally different than an entity owing anyone else trillions of dollars.

It's not "lies and spin," which is the entire bone of contention here. Again, you very much want to tell me that when I say that Wells Fargo's lawsuit against Wells Fargo is pointless, I'm "actually" saying that all lawsuits are pointless. That's false. It's just false. I've asked you what you're arguing for, and you haven't answered. All you've done is, once again, said that anyone who disagrees with you is a big, fat liar without saying why. You aren't saying what you're fighting for because you apparently can't, beyond calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar. That's what you want. That's your cause. You want to call people liars for pages and pages on end for the same reason that I could call someone who says "Me and Larry" versus "Larry and me" a "liar" for pages and pages on end because this person broke a ridiculously specific rule of grammar. It achieves nothing.

You want to say that I'm saying that we don't owe previous generations for what they've paid. The problem with your premise is that I'm not saying that. I'll actually argue quite vehemently that we do owe previous generations what they've paid. So please, don't tell me that you're "fighting for what earlier generations are owed" when nobody is disputing what is owed.

Why aren't you questioning the motives of the person who's spent a week pointing out that the government doesn't have the money to redeem t-bills, IF THE T-BILLS ARE OWNED BY SS (but who STILL won't admit that that statement applies to all t-bills)?

How come you aren't questioning the motives of the people (including you) who are fighting so hard to claim that the government DOESN'T owe that money to SS?

Because nobody's claiming that.

I've stood up and said, "The government owes that money either way. Going through the effort of paying accountants to change numbers on books when the government would owe that money either way is a giant waste of time."

You've stood up and said, "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! You're a liar, and I'm going to tell everyone that you're a liar, and you're saying that the government doesn't owe what liars like yourself say it doesn't owe if you say so, and you're only saying it doesn't for selfish reasons! You're a lying jackass who probably punches innocent children in the face and farts in elevators!"

And I'm saying, once again, "No, the government owes that money either way. But going through the effort of paying accountants to change numbers on books when the government would owe that money either way is, in fact, a giant waste of time."

[Larry]

I see that we've introduced capital letters into the conversation.

As I mentioned previously, I was on my iPad, which makes things like italics and underlining very difficult, but allows caps lock with relative ease.

I see that your lead-off point is a critique of the typography.

Because I'm pointing out that an entity "owing itself" trillions of dollars is fundamentally different than an entity owing anyone else trillions of dollars.

And if only the Social Security Trust Fund didn't exist as a separate entity, then this iteration of "the trust fund doesn't exist because . . . " would have some validity.

Unfortunately, reality once again intrudes on the attempt.

You want to say that I'm saying that we don't owe previous generations for what they've paid. The problem with your premise is that I'm not saying that.

Rather, you are spending pages and pages trying to argue reasons why this debt doesn't exist (see the above "it is impossible for two entities which are both managed by one entity to owe money to each other" claim), without giving any reason at all why it's so important to you to get rid of it.

The SS trust fund exists. It has existed for decades.

The reason why you want to change that is . . . ?

I'll actually argue quite vehemently that we do owe previous generations what they've paid. So please, don't tell me that you're "fighting for what earlier generations are owed" when nobody is disputing what is owed.

The reason for your fictional claim that the trust fund does not exist is . . . ?

You've made the claim. I've quoted it.

Because nobody's claiming that.

Really? "Nobody is claiming" that the government doesn't have the money sitting around to redeem the t-bills that are owned by the SS trust fund? (While being careful to specify that they're specifically talking about the t-bills owned by SS?)

Do you really want me to spend an hour or more going through this entire thread and quote every single time that claim has been made? Starting with the OP?

I've stood up and said, "The government owes that money either way. Going through the effort of paying accountants to change numbers on books when the government would owe that money either way is a giant waste of time."

Oh, now there's a new one.

"I think we should eliminate the SS trust fund, because keeping track of how much SS takes in, and how much it spends, and the interest earned on it's savings account, is just too complicated and expensive."

Silly me. And here I was assuming that there was no honest, legitimate reason for why the government should do away with a trust fund which they have been maintaining for decades. It never occurred to me that people might want to go through the effort and expense of changing things around, in order to avoid the crushing overhead and expense of once a year calculating how much interest is earned on umpty-ump dollars worth of t-bills.

Yep, that accounting nightmare of taking "current balance", multiplying it by "current interest rate", and pressing "equals", and the calculator spits out "interest earned" sure is a legitimate reason for just tossing those t-bills in the shredder.

You've stood up and said, "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! You're a liar, and I'm going to tell everyone that you're a liar, and you're saying that the government doesn't owe what liars like yourself say it doesn't owe if you say so, and you're only saying it doesn't for selfish reasons! You're a lying jackass who probably punches innocent children in the face and farts in elevators!"

I think I'll let my actual words speak for themselves.

And I'm saying, once again, "No, the government owes that money either way. But going through the effort of paying accountants to change numbers on books when the government would owe that money either way is, in fact, a giant waste of time."

I'm not 100% certain. But I'm pretty convinced that you, yourself, have spent more man-hours in this thread over the last few weeks, trying to come up with different ways of repeating the same two bogus lines about why the trust fund doesn't exist, than what the government spent on keeping track of the balance of the trust fund, in the last year.