Tariffs...what to make of them.

SmooveP said:
I don't get why SS is part of the govt's budget conversation. Isn't it supposed to be its own separate ricebowl?
It has its own problems, for sure, but the solutions don't seem that hard. (Until you add politics in.)
Click to expand...
It originally was but, now the government has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund to finance other government spending through the issuance of special-issue Treasury bonds, which the Trust Fund holds.
 
JPark said:
It originally was but, now the government has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund to finance other government spending through the issuance of special-issue Treasury bonds, which the Trust Fund holds.
Click to expand...
Is this actually true? I've heard it my whole life and thought it was the case but when looking into it, it doesn't seem to be.
 
JPark said:
It originally was but, now the government has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund to finance other government spending through the issuance of special-issue Treasury bonds, which the Trust Fund holds.
Click to expand...
Correct. But Al Gore, said when he ran for President, he wanted to put SS in a lock box and most people laughed at the statement. The federal government has been borrowing from SS since Reagan to balance budget or for tax cuts for the top 1%. I think if Bernie would have beat Hilary, there would be no tRUMP. I did vote for Bernie in 16 and been a never tRUMP bc he paid the contractor I work for .50 or .75 cents on a dollar.
 
John the Plumber said:
Correct. But Al Gore, said when he ran for President, he wanted to put SS in a lock box and most people laughed at the statement. The federal government has been borrowing from SS since Reagan to balance budget or for tax cuts for the top 1%. I think if Bernie would have beat Hilary, there would be no tRUMP. I did vote for Bernie in 16 and been a never tRUMP bc he paid the contractor I work for .50 or .75 cents on a dollar.
Click to expand...
Can you point me to more info on how they've been taking money since the Reagan administration?

Not saying it's not true, but best I can find is that SS funds are invested in treasuries.
 
Santapez said:
Can you point me to more info on how they've been taking money since the Reagan administration?

Not saying it's not true, but best I can find is that SS funds are invested in treasuries.
Click to expand...
The Clinton/Gingrich budget surplus was kind of an accounting gimmick.
Social Security had an annual surplus back then because of more people working and less retirees.
So the surplus SS money was able to be used in the general budget instead of being locked away for future retirees, creating more money to spend without increasing any real revenue. The government then writes an IOU to the SS fund in the form of a bond (they have to pay it back later).
There was actually some budget cuts due to the peace dividend after the cold war ended (or did it ever really end?) but that didn't last long.
 
JPark said:
The Clinton/Gingrich budget surplus was kind of an accounting gimmick.
Social Security had an annual surplus back then because of more people working and less retirees.
So the surplus SS money was able to be used in the general budget instead of being locked away for future retirees, creating more money to spend without increasing any real revenue. The government then writes an IOU to the SS fund in the form of a bond (they have to pay it back later).
There was actually some budget cuts due to the peace dividend after the cold war ended (or did it ever really end?) but that didn't last long.
Click to expand...

Yes, but as far as I can tell the money wasn't just taken out like how we're all lead to believe but was used to purchase treasuries. The funds would always be invested, it's just that they're invested in treasuries which is a commonly accepted safe investment.
 
Santapez said:
Can you point me to more info on how they've been taking money since the Reagan administration?

Not saying it's not true, but best I can find is that SS funds are invested in treasuries.
Click to expand...
The only thing is that I heard and read somewhere that there is an IOU bc of this. I will have to find you some more evidence. Thanks
 
I don't know how to pin something from the internet but I will give you a short version. Look up borrowing from SS. This has been going on since the early 1980's. They have been borrowing for the military and also in the 1990's it was running a surplus and congress used these funds that were supposed to be used for future SS payments. Congress has borrowed $2.9 trillion from SS but this is backed by US Treasury Bonds meaning this money has not been misappropriated. This is where it gets confusing for me why the keep saying it is going broke.
 
John the Plumber said:
I don't know how to pin something from the internet but I will give you a short version. Look up borrowing from SS. This has been going on since the early 1980's. They have been borrowing for the military and also in the 1990's it was running a surplus and congress used these funds that were supposed to be used for future SS payments. Congress has borrowed $2.9 trillion from SS but this is backed by US Treasury Bonds meaning this money has not been misappropriated. This is where it gets confusing for me why the keep saying it is going broke.
Click to expand...
This is from an AI query but it gives a good overview.

Social Security was running a surplus during those years because payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments. For example, in FY 2000, Social Security brought in about $153 billion more than it paid out. That excess was counted as part of the government’s revenue in the unified budget. Without it, the on-budget portion was often still in deficit. Take FY 1999: the unified surplus was $126 billion, but the on-budget surplus was just $1.9 billion—meaning nearly all the “surplus” came from Social Security. In FY 1998, the on-budget account was actually in deficit by $30 billion, offset by a $99 billion off-budget surplus.
So, was it “really” a surplus? It depends on your lens:
  • Unified Budget View: Yes, it was a surplus because total cash in (including Social Security taxes) exceeded total cash out. This is the standard way the government reports it, and it’s what Clinton and Congress celebrated.
  • On-Budget View: No, or at least not much of one, because without Social Security’s contribution, the government was still spending more than it collected from other taxes. Critics argue this masks the true fiscal picture, since Social Security surpluses are supposed to be saved for future retirees, not spent.
The catch is what happened to that Social Security surplus: it was lent to the Treasury via special securities, effectively funding other government operations. This increased intragovernmental debt, which is why the national debt kept rising. Some call this “raiding the trust fund,” though it’s standard practice—every administration does it under current law.
 
Sounds like it's more of an issue on the debt level the US has being a lie and worse than stated, not that SS funds were actually raided.

Granted, if things get bad enough SS is out of money if the government can't pay back those treasuries.

I don't know what "Special Securities" means. If they're paying lower interest rates than general securities or other unfavorable terms.
 
John the Plumber said:
I don't know how to pin something from the internet but I will give you a short version. Look up borrowing from SS. This has been going on since the early 1980's. They have been borrowing for the military and also in the 1990's it was running a surplus and congress used these funds that were supposed to be used for future SS payments. Congress has borrowed $2.9 trillion from SS but this is backed by US Treasury Bonds meaning this money has not been misappropriated. This is where it gets confusing for me why the keep saying it is going broke.
Click to expand...
You correct in that the money isn't technically being stolen.
But the government will have to borrow money +interest to pay it back. When you buy a treasury bond the government is borrowing money from you and paying you back with interest. The other option is "printing" more money which increases inflation.
 
Santapez said:
Sounds like it's more of an issue on the debt level the US has being a lie and worse than stated, not that SS funds were actually raided.

Granted, if things get bad enough SS is out of money if the government can't pay back those treasuries.

I don't know what "Special Securities" means. If they're paying lower interest rates than general securities or other unfavorable terms.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone knows what "Special Securities" means 😉
 
Santapez said:
Sounds like it's more of an issue on the debt level the US has being a lie and worse than stated, not that SS funds were actually raided.
Click to expand...
Beyond the actual debt figure there are unfunded obligations that have some staggering numbers, bigger than the existing debt figure by multitudes, as I understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom