patrick.net

20 years of unchecked invaders and their state supported breeding is a unfunded liability - right?

Bap33 says

20 years of unchecked invaders and their state supported breeding is a unfunded liability - right?

Not to the Dumocrats. They don't view their votes as a "liability."

Sure,... infinite tax paying citizens and productive workers in to perpetuity.

We all have our issues. Anger that doesn't know where to go isn't mine.

marcus says

Sure,… infinite tax paying citizens and productive workers in to perpetuity.

Why not open all borders and ports to anyone and everyone that wants in? On a personal basis, why not open all your doors to your home and allow anyone in to live with you? At least your personal policy will prove you are not a hypocrite. As far as "infinite tax paying citizens," since when are illegals "citizens" that pay "taxes?"

RayAmerica says

At least your personal policy will prove you are not a hypocrite

The "infinite" refers to the future,...their children, their children's children, and so on. And I'm not advocating illegal immigration, it's not fair to those that are ahead of them in line to come in, and we need to do better with letting talented foreign students stay here more easily.

While I'm not advocating it, I don't see it as a scourge. The fact that I think it's probably even a blessing, at least in some ways, doesn't make me a hypocrite for saying it need to stop.

Time for me to stop un-ignoring you Ray.

I bet marcus wishes there was a little icon that would show up on Ray's screen that said, "marcus is ignoring you" .... or "neener neener" .... same diff

The trust fund is invested in US debt, which is why some might think of it as debt. There is a debt there, and assets offsetting it. When that money was coming in, it did allow us to spend more on tax cuts for the rich. It is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. What kind of propaganda are we going to hear about it.

I'm still waiting to see whether I have to give up on Obama, if the tax cuts for the rich don't expire.

marcus says

The trust fund is invested in US debt, which is why some might think of it as debt. There is a debt there, and assets offsetting it.

Marcus is being wasted in here. He really should be in Washington where his talent for double talk would be much more appreciated. LOL

marcus says

The total accumulated surplus from all the years when inflows greatly surpassed outflows is a total surplus of something like 2.6 trillion.

A complete, absolute lie and fraud. The same nonsense that is being promulgated by our government. The fact is, every administration since LBJ has raided the SS surplus, replaced it in the amounts of special, non-sellable IOU Bonds, and spent the SS money as applied to the General Fund. There is no surplus, just paper IOUs.

http://debtism.com/social-security/social-security-surplus-myth-art14.htm

marcus says

Ray, if you could be wrong more gracefully, and weren’t such a jerk I wouldn’t have to keep you on ignore. (just wanted you to know that its not because of your far below average intelligence

marcus says

money was payed out

A free lesson from the one with "far below average intelligence." It's "paid" not "payed." The word "payed" is an archaic English word dealing with ropes. I'm really surprised, being that I'm so dumb and you're so obviously superior in intelligence (as in way above average intelligence and all), that I knew that and you didn't. LOL

I remeber there only being IOU's in the SS pot ... Reagan said something about that I think

By the way, just to clarify for Ray, what the unfunded liabilities are.

The trust fund is invested in debt securities. So the government owes itself money that will be paid out in the future to SS recipients. But the amount it owes itself (the fund) is only equal to what had been paid in to it.

Unfunded liabilities refer the amount that will be needed which exceeds what is in the fund (what the government owes itself) plus future incoming payroll taxes. That is, the total of the debt to future SS recipients plus future payroll taxes at some point will be less than enough to cover pay to recipients. The unfunded liabilities refers only to this shortfall.

The debt part of it, the ious so to speak, are part of the funded liabilities.

They say SS is good if you just tweak it with a combination of increasing the cut off for payroll taxes, and increasing the retirement age. Even without doing anything you would have to live a long time to see SS be in trouble.

They say Medicare is the real time bomb. The baby boomer's big gift back to us will be forcing more health care reform in the next 30 to 40 years. Maybe on the medicare side there could be some kind of means testing whereby those who could afford it would have to buy more expensive medicare supplemental insurance than others do.

You can be sure that with the baby boom there will be some kind of "death panels," that is less spending huge money for a few extra weeks or months of misery.

By the way, just to clarify for Marcus, what the unfunded liabilties are:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-national-debt-is-huge-but-unfunded-liabilities-are-americas-real-red-ink-challenge/

Ray--

It's pretty simple. Here's a hypothetical for you--what if a new disease emerges that affects people over 65, killing 50% before age 68. What does that do to the calculation for unfunded liability?

That's why it's not debt. It's debt when the US has to borrow money from someone to pay out the benefits. Until then it's just a calculation of the future shortfall, based on many, many assumptions which may or may not turn out to be correct.

marcus says

The baby boomer’s big gift back to us will be forcing more health care reform in the next 30 to 40 years.

5-10 really.

The peak of the baby boom was born in 1955 an is therefore the front half of the baby boom wave is aged 55-65 now.

tatupu, when the gov sets money in account "A" from taxes, with a promis of returning that money plus interest at a time in the future .... and then allows non-workers to tap that fund .... and taps that fund to pay for other cash-short handout programs .. and just keeps putting "IOU" in account "A" instead of the promised money that the taxes are supposed to be for .. while still taking out the taxes for account "A" .... wouldn't that be called a debt? Serious question, not starting crap. Thanks

Bap33 says

I remeber there only being IOU’s in the SS pot … Reagan said something about that I think

That is a lie that the right often repeats, yes. Same as their other lies about nearly everything.

Bap33 says

and taps that fund to pay for other cash-short handout programs .. and just keeps putting “IOU” in account “A” instead of the promised money that the taxes are supposed to be for .. while still taking out the taxes for account “A” …. wouldn’t that be called a debt?

Yes, the general fund owes social security $2.6T as of now, $1.5T in FICA over-taxation and another $1.1T in accrued interest.

This is not an unfunded liability, which is the gap between scheduled benefits and what resources the program is expected to have to pay them.

The difference between "Debt Held By the Public" and the "Public Debt" is the amount the general fund has borrowed and spent from the various trust funds.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN

-

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYGFDPUN

=

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBATN

lol .. when you say lie .... do you mean a Clinton type lie or an Arab Terrorist type lie? I was just asking man, geeeze

Bap33 says

tatupu, when the gov sets money in account “A” from taxes, with a promis of returning that money plus interest at a time in the future …. and then allows non-workers to tap that fund …. and taps that fund to pay for other cash-short handout programs .. and just keeps putting “IOU” in account “A” instead of the promised money that the taxes are supposed to be for .. while still taking out the taxes for account “A” …. wouldn’t that be called a debt? Serious question, not starting crap. Thanks

The IOUs from the government to the SS fund are debt. Not sure why you include the BS about illegals in there though.

Troy says

the front half of the baby boom wave is aged 55-65 now.

Yes. And the kind of super expensive life extending procedures are likely to be done between age 75 and 85. Sure, many die younger than that. Bypass and expensive preventative stuff isn't what I was talking about, although that might change some too. But you're right that the impact of the baby boom on health care will start to be felt in 5 or 10 years(much more than it already is). In 30 years many changes will have been made, the reforms will be complete, which was my point.

Bap33 says

Clinton type lie

How does one compare a lie about a politicians personal life (which in some cultures is none of our business), to a lie say about why we should go to war, or about how tax cuts for the rich, when taxes are already extremely low are good for the economy ?

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

tatupu, when the gov sets money in account “A” from taxes, with a promis of returning that money plus interest at a time in the future …. and then allows non-workers to tap that fund …. and taps that fund to pay for other cash-short handout programs .. and just keeps putting “IOU” in account “A” instead of the promised money that the taxes are supposed to be for .. while still taking out the taxes for account “A” …. wouldn’t that be called a debt? Serious question, not starting crap. Thanks

The IOUs from the government to the SS fund are debt. Not sure why you include the BS about illegals in there though.

I did no such thing!! cmon now, no reason to get jumpy, I really am just asking for info!! I did not mention anything about invaders. Good 'ol lazy Americans get to tap that fund too, wheather they put in a dime or not. Even if it's not THAT EXACT fund, the program used to hand out the cash are funded from the money taken from the SSI account .. there by they accessed the fund.

Bap33 says

Good ‘ol lazy Americans get to tap that fund too

But why didn't you cite these "tapping the fund ?"

1) All the corporate welfare recievers
2) All of those who directly or indirectly receive money from the defense budget (eg Hliburton)
3) The rich whose low taxes are a direct subsidy from uncle sam (that is borrowed from everyone in the future)

I would argue that without the social security surplus that existed for a while, we would be spending just as much on welfare, but we would not have been able to justify the tax cuts for the rich. Remember, the tax cuts were initiated at a time of a "balanced budget" that would not have been balanced if we weren't counting the SS surplus.

Do you see the logic ? Do you see who really was tapping the SS Trust fund ?

marcus says

but we would not have been able to justify the tax cuts for the rich.

they would have found a way. Note that they are fully justified now even though the government has gone $1.8T in further debt over the past 12 months.

The point is to defund the government by any means available.

Wish I spoke German and/or Norwegian. I don't feel particularly drawn back to Japan again though I suppose their weather is better than Norway's.

marcus says

But why didn’t you cite these “tapping the fund ?”

marcus says

All of those who directly or indirectly receive money from the defense budget (eg Hliburton)

Why bring Halliburton into the discussion? Halliburton (or “Hliburton” as you spell it) is past tense. Surely Obama got rid of Halliburton ... it was all part of his "change" pogrom. LOL

marcus says

The trust fund is invested in debt securities. So the government owes itself money that will be paid out in the future to SS recipients. But the amount it owes itself (the fund) is only equal to what had been paid in to it.

So, the "Trust Fund" purchases debt securities (Treasuries) on the open market? Can anyone purchase these Treasuries?

If you lend money to your kids, Doe that mean you have purchased a debt security that they have sold to you?

Paralithodes says

So, the “Trust Fund” purchases debt securities (Treasuries) on the open market? Can anyone purchase these Treasuries?

Completely Irrelevant. The trust funds overtaxed to build up those reserves. How the general fund pays them back is none of their concern.

It is OUR concern though, since FICA payers are owed that $2.6T and the bottom 90% of the country only pays 30% of the income taxes and shoulders much less of the total tax burden when capital gains and corporate taxes are added.

If you lend money to your kids,

FICA payers essentially lent $1.5T + accrued interest to the top 10% of the country, 1992-now. This is pretty simple to understand so by this point anyone arguing that the trust fund is funny money is arguing for the greatest theft in US history.

I really hope you guys pull this off, btw. I've only got ~$50K paid into the system so far. I don't expect to have my contributions returned to me, not because the system is insolvent or a ponzi, but because this nation is a nation of idiots and taking this money will be like taking candy from a baby.

The actual analogue would be for a baby boom family to lend money to a rich uncle -- call him Uncle Fu, 1990-2010. Uncle Fu dies leaving estate to Cousin Fu. Cousin Fu says since we all owe the money to ourselves it's all good and don't expect to have him repay us.

Troy says

The money was already “debased” by the PREVIOUS decade-plus monetary expansion.

Correct. But please explain how adding $trillions more in paper money helps the situation.

shrekgrinch says

Uh….I thought we were already in a deflationary depression. Your pal, Ben Bernanke keeps saying so. So does Obama Bankster Crony Tim Geithner.

Do you have some quotes to back that up?

@Ray America, great line of posts on this thread.

shrekgrinch says

Please tell us why you think the Icelandic people should pay for that at all?

Ditto for why Irish people should pay for what private banks were up to in Ireland and Germany, etc..

THE IRISH AND ICELANDIC PEOPLES WERE LIVING THE BUBBLE LIFE by SPENDING THAT MONEY!

"Lewis wrote that, “By 2006 the average Icelandic family was three times as wealthy as it had been in 2003, and virtually all of this new wealth was in one way or another tied to the new investment-banking industry.”

http://www.suite101.com/content/icelands-financial-collapse-a128856

The stories of Iceland's profligate ways towards the end of their bubble are quite impressive.

All the overbuilding in Ireland was chasing Irish nationals flush with bubble cash too.

There are up to 300,000 surplus houses in Ireland now, 1 in 6 houses -- and prices there have crashed 50%.

The proles don't deserve to carry the entire cost, but they were complicit in the run-up.

Bap .... thanks. Coming from you (someone I respect) is a real compliment.

Bap33 says

@Ray America, great line of posts on this thread.

RayAmerica says

Bap …. thanks. Coming from you (someone I respect) is a real compliment.

Awww. Could it be,... another bromance blossoming on Patrick.net ?

Don't worry Bap, I mean that in a COMPLETELY hetero way.

marcus spelled backwards is suc ram .... suprized? me either.

Bap, I'm sure you want to keep Ray's respect, so keep in mind, to him there is nothing more important than proper spelling and syntax in your post. That's why you might want to change that to "me neither." There are some logic issues with some other recent posts of yours, but don't worry about those. Ray won't even notice that.

I still say you're a good guy Bap, and I think if it weren't for the whole Guns, Gays and God thing, you would be a "liberal."

Without Guns or God there would be nobody in America able/willing and charged with the duty to protect the rights of deviants to enjoy a safe life, free of illegal prosecution from such persons as found in the Iranian Gov.

Marcus ... thanks for keeping the discussion on track with the topic. I realize my points don't resonate with yours, but yours don't with mine either. You may or may not agree with my positions, but at least most people probably understand what I'm saying. However, I'm often confused by yours as illustrated by the following:

marcus says

The trust fund is invested in US debt, which is why some might think of it as debt. There is a debt there, and assets offsetting it.

Try to give a detailed, specific explanation as to what this actually means. If you can't explain it, I'll understand why. I'll bet everyone else that reads this twisted post is scratching their heads too.