Musk: Kiss Your Social Security Goodbye, Grandma!

[gamb00ler]

15 minutes ago, TedG said:

Where does the money come from to honor these bonds?

I only answer really really stoooopid questions on Leap Year day.  Have you forgotten already???

[TedG]

14 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I only answer really really stoooopid questions on Leap Year day.  Have you forgotten already???

For some reason you don’t want to answer the question due to the fact it blows your narrative.

[TedG]

20 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

You continually refer to the SS trust funds as being in deficit since 2010 because your favorite partisan publication says so.  If you wish to refer to the retirement benefit trust fund only .... do not call it the Dept. of SS.  Its proper name is OASI.

 

The official historical revenue/expenses of OASI are given here:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a1.html

 

Apparently, I'm not 'the only person' who thinks the fund did not start declining in 2010 but did in 2021. 

 

You will see that in 2011 and 2012 significant funds from the Federal government general revenue stream were given to OASI.  That happened because of special tax credits given as part of the recovery from the financial collapse from 2007 to 2009.  The FICA taxes were temporarily refunded as a tax credit by the Feds.  The Federal government did not want to make the OASI suffer from their decision to give tax payers a boost during the recovery.

 

Is the GAO partisan?

 

SS has paid put more then it received in revenue since 2010.  That is a fact. 

[gamb00ler]

1 minute ago, TedG said:

For some reason you don’t want to answer the question due to the fact it blows your narrative.

I already explained it fully step by step.  I can only explain it for you.... it's up to you to read and understand it.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1361981-three-us-ex-presidents-denounce-the-current-one-in-a-two-week-stretch/?do=findComment&comment=19837190

 

Do you have any questions?

[TedG]

Just now, gamb00ler said:

I already explained it fully step by step.  I can only explain it for you.... it's up to you to read and understand it.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1361981-three-us-ex-presidents-denounce-the-current-one-in-a-two-week-stretch/?do=findComment&comment=19837190

 

Do you have any questions?

 

Why are you denying that SS has paid out more then it has received in income since 2010?

[TedG]

12 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I already explained it fully step by step.  I can only explain it for you.... it's up to you to read and understand it.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1361981-three-us-ex-presidents-denounce-the-current-one-in-a-two-week-stretch/?do=findComment&comment=19837190

 

Do you have any questions?

 

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-08/60392-Long-Term-Social-Security-Projections.xlsx

 

Do you have any questions?

[gamb00ler]

39 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

Is the GAO partisan?

 

SS has paid put more then it received in revenue since 2010.  That is a fact. 

got a link to GAO's explanation?

The last time you provided a link to support your claim it fell apart after cursory examination.

[gamb00ler]

31 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

Why are you denying that SS has paid out more then it has received in income since 2010?

because that's a lie.... the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 had a shortfall in income from FICA because the Federal government gave taxpayers a mini holiday from paying full fare.  The Treasury did make up the shorted FICA income because it was caused by the special recovery stimulus not actually a true shortfall from low FICA collection.  The other shortfalls were in 2009, 2012 and 2013 were also due to adjustments to the military's contribution to FICA.  You really should read the footnotes to understand the meaning of the simplified summary numbers.

 

Salient footnotes:

 

Includes reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI Trust Fund for: (1) the cost of noncontributory wage credits for military service before 1957; (2) the cost in 1971-82 of deemed wage credits for military service performed after 1956; (3) the cost of benefits to certain uninsured persons who attained age 72 before 1968; (4) the cost of payroll tax credits provided to employees in 1984 and self-employed persons in 1984-89 by Public Law 98-21; (5) the cost in 2009-13 of excluding certain self-employment earnings from SECA taxes under Public Law 110-246; and (6) payroll tax revenue forgone under the provisions of Public Laws 111-147, 111-312, 112-78, and 112-96. Also includes transfers of a portion of proceeds from repayments of loans authorized under Public Law 116-136.

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, TedG said:

Where does the money come from to honor these bonds?

The only answer is that every obligation owed by the Treasury ultimately falls upon the taxpayers.  Any obligations to the SS trust funds by the Treasury are identical to obligations to anyone else.  And, since the Treasury doesn't borrow any more than it needs... the taxpayer is not paying anything extra just because one of the lenders is the SS trust fund.  That seems to be the part you fail to understand.

[sqwakvfr]

18 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

DOGE will find them as no one else ever bothered to look.

It's ok DODGE did not make great cars. 

[ThreeCardMonte]

16 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

That article contains a lot of nonsense.  They lump the Treasury together with the SS trust fund balance so that they can declare that the SS trust fund balance is not an asset.

 

Quoting from that article:

Put another way, investing an initial Social Security surplus in Treasury bonds creates an asset for Social Security and an equal liability for the Treasury. Since both borrower and lender are part of the same federal government, the net effect on overall federal finances is to cancel each other out.

 

This statement is correct.  But, the US Treasury and the SS trust funds are completely separate entities and there is absolutely no reason to lump them together.  They have no source of funding in common and they have no source of expense in common.  Yes.. .they are both part of the US government but otherwise totally unrelated except for strictly a lender:borrower relationship.  The same relationship that exists between the US Treasury and any other entity that buys Treasury bills.

 

Counting those Treasury bonds as net wealth is the equivalent of raiding one’s own retirement savings to go on vacation, writing yourself an IOU to repay your retirement fund later, and then treating that IOU as new net wealth to offset the cost of the vacation.

 

This statement is where the article goes completely off the rails.  It is deliberately misleading.  Nobody with an ounce of brain would be "counting those Treasury bonds as net wealth".  As correctly stated in the article earlier those bonds are an asset held by the owner (SS trust funds) but are a liability for the Treasury.  This is the exactly the case for every single Treasury bill sold.

 

The article is meant to confuse the uneducated MAGA voters.

“The article is meant to confuse the uneducated MAGA voters “

 

Were you referring to @Tug and @candide?

 

While they may not be MAGA, they certainly are uneducated and confused.

[ThreeCardMonte]

13 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

It's ok DODGE did not make great cars. 

I agree 

[gamb00ler]

29 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

“The article is meant to confuse the uneducated MAGA voters “

 

Were you referring to @Tug and @candide?

 

While they may not be MAGA, they certainly are uneducated and confused.

I'll wager that you're the most confused poster between you and I, especially in reading comprehension.

[ThreeCardMonte]

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

I'll wager that you're the most confused poster between you and I, especially in reading comprehension.

Another “highly educated “ response.

I keep reading how “highly educated “ the leftists are but I’m not seeing it.

 

So sorry.

 

[gamb00ler]

16 hours ago, TedG said:

 

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-08/60392-Long-Term-Social-Security-Projections.xlsx

 

Do you have any questions?

Not explained and not from the original source so not reliable.... They've managed to fool you but that seems to be very easy.

 

Also why would the CBO refer to that page as 'projections'?.... very suspect source of data.

 

Another link shooting down your obsession with SS trust fund shortfalls:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds-0

 

I suspect you'll bin that link so here's a salient quote:

 

Few budgetary concepts generate as much unintended confusion and deliberate misinformation as the Social Security trust funds. The trust funds are invested in Treasury securities that are just as sound as all other U.S. government securities, held by investors around the globe and regarded as being among the world’s safest investments. Starting in 2021, Social Security began drawing down trust fund reserves to help pay for benefits. Although Social Security has a long-term financial shortfall that must be closed, the program’s combined trust funds will not be depleted until around 2035, which gives policymakers time to develop a carefully crafted financing plan.

 

[gamb00ler]

18 hours ago, TedG said:

 

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-08/60392-Long-Term-Social-Security-Projections.xlsx

 

Do you have any questions?

Once again your biased 'source' has only shown the trust funds income from FICA taxes while ignoring the interest income earned on the Treasury bonds it has been holding.

 

Take this spreadsheet to the bank and explain to them that they shouldn't count the interest they earn on the money you borrowed.  I think they'll hold the same opinion as most that not counting interest is idiotic.

 

You keep insisting that the SS trust fund investing in Treasury bills is not legitimate.

[WDSmart]

On 6/2/2025 at 7:09 PM, Quentin Zen said:

On 6/2/2025 at 3:16 PM, WDSmart said:

Social Security retirement funds are meant for retired people, a.k.a. those who are no longer working. I hope Trump, or someone in his government, decides that people who live outside the USA should not receive SS benefits. 

anyone who is outside of America cannot possibly be retired or working, so I agree.  You can only retire or work in America if you are an American.  Once I met a guy in Thailand who was 90 and told me he was retired and no longer working, I showed him your post and now he realizes that's impossible.  Back to America and into the mines!!!! 

My apologies. 😟 I mistyped my post above. I meant to say that "I hope Trump, or someone in his government, DOES NOT DECIDE that people who live outside the USA should not receive SS benefits. 😠