https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49687478

Los Angeles: Why tens of thousands of people sleep rough

• Published
  19 September 2019

Share

 

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/12871/production/_108798857_lahomelessness1getty.jpgIMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES

By Daniel Flaming and Gary Blasi

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

My SS direct deposit to a US account came in much later than it ever had before. I'm not stressed as it did come in. But I'm wondering if this is a widespread thing and related to the Musk big ball boys? 

Just later in the day, or later in the month?  If it's just late during the day, blame your bank. I can't imagine anything else. 

Social Security to Move Comms to Musk’s X After DOGE Cuts

 

Musk just needs a few more little baby steps in his pretend bomber jacket before all the SS money flows through X's servers because something something something.

 

The Trump administration’s move to classify thousands of living immigrants as dead and cancel their Social Security numbers

 

If Trump can just "declare" someone dead and strip them of their entire future, can he get away with doing it to me or you?

 

Maybe it's just another mistake, they will say. 

 

Good luck on getting the Trump administration to correct it.

 

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. 
And, I'm totally against trying to colonize Mars. We're destroying the Earth and should not be allowed to spread our species to another planet.

40 minutes ago, 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. 
And, I'm totally against trying to colonize Mars. We're destroying the Earth and should not be allowed to spread our species to another planet.

I have heard rumors about that but not sure if it is true or not.

That may just turn a few diehards MM's against trump,specially the ones on AN.

12 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Speculation and guessing is all the left has anymore since losing the election in a landslide.

 

Throw in lies for good measure.

What landslide was that again?

Show the numbers please.

19 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

If they paid into SS and followed the guidelines their working career they should receive it regardless where they currently live.

 

This applies to USC and LPR.

 

Illegal aliens is a big no.  

 

And if grandma is a Civil War widow, that's a no, too.

 

1 minute ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Musk got rid of them along with the Spanish American war, Phillippine Insurrection and WW1 Doughboy “widows.

 

I'm appalled that it took a Big Balls to address such obvious database issues.  Even if very few of them actually got benefits, how do you forecast future needs if the data is that fooked?

 

10 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

All over the internet.  Search and you shall find.

 

Don’t be a lazy lefty.

I know the numbers,far from a landslide.

Do you know the numbers? or are you typically maga and hardly know how to read?

 

10 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

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

DODGE used to make cars.  DOGE. 

1 hour ago, 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. 
And, I'm totally against trying to colonize Mars. We're destroying the Earth and should not be allowed to spread our species to another planet.

I meant I hope Trump will NOT decide that people who live outside the USA should not receive benefits.

1 hour ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

If they paid into SS and followed the guidelines their working career they should receive it regardless where they currently live.

 

This applies to USC and LPR.

 

Illegal aliens is a big no.  

Yes, and I mistyped my original post. I hope Trump does NOT decide people who live outside the USA should not receive their SS benefits. 

On 3/11/2025 at 9:12 PM, TedG said:

https://manhattan.institute/article/problems-with-eliminating-the-social-security-tax-cap

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.

15 minutes 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.

 

You keep in beating a dead house for some reason.    I’ve proved the Dept of SS has run a deficit since 2010.  You are the only person who says that is not the case.  

 

17 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

 

 

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 treasury bonds are an OUI from the government to the government.  

20 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

The treasury bonds are an OUI from the government to the government.  

Can you explain why you think that is a dire situation?  EVERY Treasury bill is an IOU !!!!

Thousands of Americans are holding those IOU's.  Shirley that must be incestuous!

 

By the way, what does IOU stand for.... quick now... don't ask google!

 

I hope you don't consider that a brilliant deduction... LOL

 

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

I hope you don't consider that a brilliant deduction... LOL

 

Where does the money come from to honor these bonds?

3 hours ago, 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!!!! 

35 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

You keep in beating a dead house for some reason.    I’ve proved the Dept of SS has run a deficit since 2010.  You are the only person who says that is not the case.  

 

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.

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???

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.

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. 

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.