Americans on SS: What will you do when SS will Cut $18,000 in 7 years?

[JimGant]

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

But... he does agree with my opinion that the current shortfall in SSA cash flow is NOT increasing the NATIONAL DEBT.

So you believe that if the SS bought gold with their surplus, and not Treasury IOUs -- things would be the same re national debt when they finally ran into cash flow deficit? Maybe this is a progressive mind fart, since Bernie is your buddy in this misrepresentation. 

[gamb00ler]

6 hours ago, JimGant said:

So you believe that if the SS bought gold with their surplus, and not Treasury IOUs -- things would be the same re national debt when they finally ran into cash flow deficit? Maybe this is a progressive mind fart, since Bernie is your buddy in this misrepresentation. 

Yes... because instead of the 'public debt' total being held down by the influx of the excess FICA taxes, Treasury would have had to sell T-bills to the public...  Consequently, the 'public debt' would have been higher for decades.  But of course.... through out all those years the total NATIONAL DEBT would be unaffected...... because the NATIONAL DEBT consists of both intragovernmental and public debt.

 

You're really embarrassing yourself by ignoring all these obvious effects.

 

I'm glad you created your parable and asked this question.  The answer to your question clearly illustrates that CATO's obsession about the 'public debt' is a very red fish.

[gamb00ler]

7 hours ago, JimGant said:

So you believe that if the SS bought gold with their surplus, and not Treasury IOUs -- things would be the same re national debt when they finally ran into cash flow deficit? Maybe this is a progressive mind fart, since Bernie is your buddy in this misrepresentation. 

A very simple explanation of the effect created by the shortfall in OASI income just occurred to me.

 

The depletion of OASI is simply the unwinding of the 'benefit' that the excess FICA collections created in the baby boom years.  When OASI is depleted US will return to 'normal'.  The NATIONAL DEBT will be almost identical to the 'public debt'.  

[JimGant]

Ok, the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation have gotten it wrong, in your and Bernie's estimation, as they concentrate only on the Public Debt increase. This increase due to SS cash flow deficits, occurring since 2010, was $115B in 2023. The Treasury had to obtain $115B from China, and elsewhere in the public domain, to cover this deficit. But as you have pointed out, that $115B is zeroed out, when you factor in intragovernmental debt and the cancellation of $115B in IOUs owned by the SS Trust Fund. Thus, these SS cash flow deficits, in this scenario, are not reflected in the national debt. So, with this rosy picture, nothing to worry about until 2033.

 

Shame on Cato and Heritage for using a debt scenario that accurately points out that the problem is NOW -- and not in 2033, when the IOUs run out. Just can't trust these right wing organizations.

 

 

[gamb00ler]

5 hours ago, JimGant said:

Ok, the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation have gotten it wrong, in your and Bernie's estimation, as they concentrate only on the Public Debt increase.

The public debt increase is solely caused by its remarkable decrease during the years when the FICA taxes were pouring in and building up a huge excess that shifted the government's borrowing to intragovernmental loans.  If that excess didn't happen... then obviously the 'public debt' couldn't increase from the artificially low levels created by OASI excess funds.  Without the huge buildup in OASI lending.... the 'public debt' would be almost 100% of NATIONAL DEBT.  So if you truthfully believe that the decline in OASI trust fund is 'bad' and causing trouble then you must accept that the huge buildup of OASI in the baby boom years was 'great'.  When OASI lending stops.... the NATIONAL DEBT will be near 100% 'public debt'.... which it would have been if SSA were never created.

 

As for your promulgation of the notion that CATO's intent is to bring attention to the impending SS benefit reduction upon the demise of OASI funds.... that is just hogwash.  Many much better informed sources have been blasting out the facts on SS shortfalls without the extreme angst that CATO is injecting into the topic.

[JimGant]

Yes, the pre-2010 days of excess SS cash flow meant the Treasury had to borrow less from the public. But, that was then. Today, and since 2010, SS's negative cash flows have been a serious contributor to public debt. That's what Cato, Heritage, and other forward thinkers are warning about. It's nice to ponder history; but it changes nothing about today and tomorrow. 

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

As for your promulgation of the notion that CATO's intent is to bring attention to the impending SS benefit reduction upon the demise of OASI funds.... that is just hogwash

Where did I ever imply that? Everybody knows, without Cato adding, that come 2033 that SS benefits will decrease, 'cause without any remaining IOUs, the current law doesn't allow SS to borrow what the missing IOUs no longer cover. This law will certainly be changed, if it has to be -- to keep benefits stable.

 

What this whole discussion is about is: SS negative cash flow is contributing to the national debt NOW -- and any sleight-of-hand accounting doesn't alter that problem. So, address this problem now, and maybe come 2033 there will no longer be a problem. This is where Cato and Heritage are coming from. Staving off the 2033 problem will just be serendipity of addressing the deficit problem NOW. 

 

It doesn't bother me that you don't realize the problem. But, that members of Congress, like Bernie Sanders can't grasp the significance of the deficit problem is concerning -- 'cause come 2033, Congress will just have to pass a law allowing general revenue funds to cover the benefit shortfall -- and then the deficit angle from SS cash flows will still exist. Tho' this isn't the end of the world, as studies have shown this would only increase national debt by about 4%. However, it would be better, as Cato and Heritage suggest, if we start working the problem soonest.

 

Why you believe Cato and Heritage have some kind of negative agenda against SS -- is beyond my comprehension. I guess, maybe, 'cause you think the problem they've discovered, is not a problem when you factor in intragovernmental debt. Such thinking stands in the way of a solution.

[gamb00ler]

26 minutes ago, JimGant said:

SS negative cash flow is contributing to the national debt NOW -- and any sleight-of-hand accounting doesn't alter that problem

Still towing the CATO line.... sad.

I bet you don't even read the links I provide that disprove CATO's opinion.  That would hurt your feelings too much. 

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

Yes, the pre-2010 days of excess SS cash flow meant the Treasury had to borrow less from the public. But, that was then. Today, and since 2010, SS's negative cash flows have been a serious contributor to public debt. That's what Cato, Heritage, and other forward thinkers are warning about. It's nice to ponder history; but it changes nothing about today and tomorrow. 

Well then.... the decrease in 'public debt' due to the OASI excess is exactly offset by the increase in 'public debt' as OASI is depleted.... it can't be anything but an equal but opposite effect.... or as they say.... it's a wash.  The amount of principal out of the OASI exactly equals the amount of the principal into OASI in the boom years.  Of course the grand total out is greater than the total in because of the decades of interest accrued.  The amount of that interest is identical (or insignificantly different) than the interest the Treasury would have paid out if those SS T-bills were instead owned by the public.

 

What facts are you in possession of that make any of those statements false?

[JimGant]

25 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I bet you don't even read the links I provide that disprove CATO's opinion.

I asked you to provide those, but your 'search my early july inputs' didn't do the trick. If your links are really enlightening, and might change my take on matters, please take the time to provide. Thank you. 

[gamb00ler]

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

Yes, the pre-2010 days of excess SS cash flow meant the Treasury had to borrow less from the public. But, that was then. Today, and since 2010, SS's negative cash flows have been a serious contributor to public debt.

You continuously state that the shortfall in SSA income is increasing the NATIONAL DEBT.  Your statement would be true if you claimed the shortfall was increasing the 'public debt'.  I NEVER claimed the 'public debt' was not increasing.  But in reality the 'public debt' was artificially decreasing during the baby boom decades and NOW the 'public debt' is reverting to a more realistic number as the OASI depletes.  That change is NOT a problem... it is a feature of the design of OASI.

 

CATO should just stay away from comments about the 'public debt' and focus on the actual problem... which is the flawed actuarials used to determine SS benefits vs funding.

 

The 'public debt' number really only has relevance over a relatively short period of time.  That time period started when OASI began growing and ends when OASI is depleted.  Outside that time period the 'public debt' will not differ much from NATIONAL DEBT because intragovernment lending didn't or won't exist.

[JimGant]

29 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

and NOW the 'public debt' is reverting to a more realistic number as the OASI depletes.  That change is NOT a problem.

Certainly it's a problem -- having to borrow $115B from China to fund the SS cash flow deficit in 2023 is definitely a problem, as are the even larger negative cash flows going forward. 

 

Anyway, this discussion is getting ridiculous. Let's agree to give it a rest. 

[gamb00ler]

14 hours ago, JimGant said:

Certainly it's a problem -- having to borrow $115B from China to fund the SS cash flow deficit in 2023 is definitely a problem, as are the even larger negative cash flows going forward. 

 

Anyway, this discussion is getting ridiculous. Let's agree to give it a rest. 

You requested that I provide links which prove that the current shortfall in SS cash flow does not increase the NATIONAL DEBT.

 

To prove it, you only need to know two facts.

 

FACT 1 is the true definition of NATIONAL DEBT as stated on a Treasury.gov web page:

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny

 

The Debt to the Penny dataset provides information about the total outstanding public debt and is reported each day. Debt to the Penny is made up of intragovernmental holdings and debt held by the public, including securities issued by the U.S. Treasury. Total public debt outstanding is composed of Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), Floating Rate Notes (FRNs), and Federal Financing Bank (FFB) securities, as well as Domestic Series, Foreign Series, State and Local Government Series (SLGS), U.S. Savings Securities, and Government Account Series (GAS) securities.

 

FACT 2, is that every redemption of a Treasury obligation (debt) reduces the NATIONAL DEBT.

 

I hope this doesn't need proving.  Obviously when a debt is paid off the total debt owed goes down.

 

SSA is currently redeeming the GAS securities it holds in OASI to cover the shortfall.  Fact 2 proves that such a redemption eliminates the Treasury's obligation for that particular GAS.  The Treasury, knowing that a redemption of a GAS is imminent will sell T-bills in the amount required.  Temporarily the NATIONAL DEBT increases by the amount of the sales required to complete the redemption.  When the GAS is redeemed the NATIONAL DEBT is reduced by the dollar amount of the redemption.  At the completion of this two-step process, the NATIONAL DEBT is unchanged since the sale and redemption are for the same amount.  The sequencing of the T-bill sale/GAS redemption may be flexible because I'm sure the Treasury has a sizeable float available to make such linked financial transactions flow smoothly.

 

 

After a couple of more searches and a lot of reading, it appears that the definition of 'public debt' used by the Treasury DOES include the GAS that are held in OASI.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/monthly-statement-public-debt/summary-of-treasury-securities-outstanding

 

 

[JimGant]

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

After a couple of more searches and a lot of reading, it appears that the definition of 'public debt' used by the Treasury DOES include the GAS that are held in OASI.

Yes. And the problem we've been having is in definitions. In several writings I've seen this:

Quote

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/

The U.S. Treasury uses the terms “national debt,” “federal debt,” and “public debt” interchangeably.

 

In others I've seen: national debt less intragovernmental debt equals public debt. And this has been the definition of public debt that I've been going on. And which Cato has also used. But we're not on the same page as Treasury, which uses "debt owed to the public" as the term I've said is "pubic debt." And thus: Intragovernmental debt plus debt owed to the public equals: (take your pick) national debt; or federal debt; or public debt. No wonder no one, including Congress, can have an intelligent conversation when they can't define what's what. 

 

So, yeah, the cash flow deficit SS has been having since 2010 has not increased national/federal/public debt, when you use these terms, as they include intragovernmental debt. What Cato and Heritage have been trying to say is that the real problem here is "debt held by the public" -- an entity not blanked out by intragovernmental debt. Thus, only when you incorporate this accounting scheme -- i.e., using only 'debt held by the public,' will you see that the problem we face is TODAY, and not 2033. Maybe if someone in Congress can understand this -- can we correct things sooner rather than later.

 

Here's a quote from Heritage that puts things in layman language:

 

Quote

Since 2010, Social Security has taken in less money from payroll tax revenues and the taxation of benefits than it pays out in benefits, generating cash-flow deficits. Social Security’s estimated 2016 cash-flow deficit was $73 billion. That $73 billion deficit requires $73 billion in new debt held by the public because, although the OASI and DI trust funds are not yet insolvent, there is no real money sitting in them—just a bunch of IOUs. Thus, when the Social Security Administration pays out benefits that exceed its payroll tax collections, the government converts those trust fund IOUs to new debt held by the public. Over the next 10 years, Social Security’s cash-flow deficits will amount to $1.1 trillion..

(italics are mine, to replace "public debt" with what's actually happening)

https://www.heritage.org/social-security/heritage-explains/the-state-social-security

 

[gamb00ler]

20 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Yes. And the problem we've been having is in definitions. In several writings I've seen this:

 

In others I've seen: national debt less intragovernmental debt equals public debt. And this has been the definition of public debt that I've been going on. And which Cato has also used. But we're not on the same page as Treasury, which uses "debt owed to the public" as the term I've said is "pubic debt." And thus: Intragovernmental debt plus debt owed to the public equals: (take your pick) national debt; or federal debt; or public debt. No wonder no one, including Congress, can have an intelligent conversation when they can't define what's what. 

 

So, yeah, the cash flow deficit SS has been having since 2010 has not increased national/federal/public debt, when you use these terms, as they include intragovernmental debt. What Cato and Heritage have been trying to say is that the real problem here is "debt held by the public" -- an entity not blanked out by intragovernmental debt. Thus, only when you incorporate this accounting scheme -- i.e., using only 'debt held by the public,' will you see that the problem we face is TODAY, and not 2033. Maybe if someone in Congress can understand this -- can we correct things sooner rather than later.

 

Here's a quote from Heritage that puts things in layman language:

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, JimGant said:

That $73 billion deficit requires $73 billion in new debt held by the public because, although the OASI and DI trust funds are not yet insolvent, there is no real money sitting in them—just a bunch of IOUs.

CATO insists that OASI funds held as GAS are not 'real money'.  That is not true.  Those GAS were purchased with real money sent to Treasury from FICA tax collections.  Now, Treasury is paying out SS benefits using the real value held as GAS by OASI.  CATO is very disingenuous by stating such an opinion.

 

Somehow CATO has the insane notion that the act of purchasing a GAS and then redeeming it somehow makes the funds not 'real money'.  And you believe this?

 

Try to explain this theory to the T-bill (only slightly different than GAS) holders and you will be the butt of much laughter.

[JimGant]

Sigh.

[gamb00ler]

6 hours ago, JimGant said:

Sigh.

Indeed...

 

I fed your quote from the heritage foundation

 https://www.heritage.org/social-security/heritage-explains/the-state-social-security

into Google's Gemini AI analyzer.  It has a pretty low opinion of it... not at all surprising!

 

Gemini said:

 

The primary error in the text is the misunderstanding of how the Social Security trust funds operate and their relationship to the national debt. The text incorrectly claims that Social Security's cash-flow deficits directly require the creation of new public debt because the trust funds contain "just a bunch of IOUs" rather than "real money."

Errors Explained

1. The Nature of the Trust Funds

 

The statement that the trust funds contain "just a bunch of IOUs" is misleading. When Social Security takes in more money than it needs to pay out in benefits, it invests the surplus in special-issue U.S. Treasury bonds. These bonds are legally backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. They are not merely IOUs, but are considered the safest and most secure investments available. When Social Security needs to pay out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes (a cash-flow deficit), the Social Security Administration redeems these bonds. The government then pays back the principal and interest on the bonds to the Social Security trust funds.

 

2. Relationship to Public Debt

The text incorrectly states that a cash-flow deficit of $73 billion "requires $73 billion in new public debt." This is a significant misunderstanding. The money used to cover Social Security's cash-flow deficits comes from the redemption of existing Treasury bonds, which were purchased with past Social Security surpluses. It is the act of redemption that requires the Treasury to find the cash, which it may do by raising taxes, borrowing from the public (issuing new public debt), or using other government revenues. However, the deficit itself is not the direct cause of new public debt creation. The debt was already incurred when the government spent the Social Security surplus in the past.

 

3. The "Insolvency" Misconception

The text accurately identifies that the trust funds would be depleted by 2034, but its phrasing about this leading to "indiscriminate benefit cuts or payment delays" can be misinterpreted. The depletion of the trust funds doesn't mean the program ends. It means that payroll tax revenues alone would only be sufficient to pay a portion of promised benefits (historically estimated around 75-80%). Without legislative action, a sudden, across-the-board cut to benefits would occur, not delays or an end to the program.

 

 

 

 

[JimGant]

8 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

The text incorrectly states that a cash-flow deficit of $73 billion "requires $73 billion in new public debt." This is a significant misunderstanding. The money used to cover Social Security's cash-flow deficits comes from the redemption of existing Treasury bonds,

As pointed out, definition confusion is what's making discussion meaningless. Read what I said above about "public debt" being defined -- by the Treasury -- as the same as national and federal debt. Thus, it incorporates intragovernmental debt. Unfortunately, Cato and Heritage have used the term public debt, believing it literally means 'public debt', and not inclusive of non public debt, like intragovernmental debt. So, the correct term to avoid confusion is "debt held by the public."

 

So, the above quote, to be accurate, should read: "A cash flow deficit of $73 billion requires $73 billion in new debt held by the public. Thus, the money used to cover Social Security's cash flow deficits comes from new cash obtained from the public.

 

Operative term here is "cash flow." Trust Fund IOUs are not "cash flow."

 

Can't blame AI for getting it wrong, if definitions are il defined. This is a case where the human brain, or at least some human brains, are superior to AI in understanding the real what's what. 

[KhunLA]

That $18k cut is for dual couple getting $75,416.67 annually from SS, 7 yrs from now.   I wish.  For me, a 24% cut only means I'd have to extended for marriage, instead retirement, as still receive way more than enough to meet the ฿40k a month.

 

A bit irrelevant, as the COLA the next 7 yrs, would probably still have me meet the retirement extension financials.

 

Of course none of that will happen, as just another doom & gloom 'what if' scenario from people that live in the negative of life.

 

As stated by others, I just hope I'm around 7 yrs from now.   The only 'what if' that I, or wife & kid care about.

[gamb00ler]

3 hours ago, JimGant said:

Operative term here is "cash flow." Trust Fund IOUs are not "cash flow."

GAS held by OASI are definitely cash equivalents.  When they are redeemed they augment the 'cash flow' from FICA and other related taxes to meet the benefit payment obligations.

 

On the face of it, your belief is not in line with reality.  Dozens of state and local governments hold other non-marketable Treasury securities.  But..... of course you and CATO are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG and demented in their belief that they can convert those securities to cash to meet other obligations.

 

[dutch boy]

Unlike many socialist countries where the masses pay up to fifty percent of their income in taxes, the citizens of the United States have lower taxes allowing them to invest in the stock market and other areas. The capital gains and income from these investments allow them to live comfortably in retirement and not to depend on the government to keep them alive such as in Canada. So SS is just another income source and not the sole provider like socialist countries. 

[gamb00ler]

On 8/2/2025 at 8:50 PM, JimGant said:

Your insistence on not believing CATO is curious.... It's all pretty simple, actually. I'll once again post this link, for anyone with a brain to analyze. I don't know if CATO is left or right oriented.

Do a little research about the founders of CATO.   Their motives are obvious and in line with their continued efforts to demonize the Social Security system through disinformation and distortion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Funding,_tax_status,_and_corporate_structure

 

 

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries.  Cato was established to focus on public advocacy, media exposure, and societal influence.

 

Cato advocates for a limited governmental role in domestic and foreign affairs and strong protection of civil liberties, including support for lowering or abolishing most taxes, opposition to the Federal Reserve system and the Affordable Care Act, the privatization of numerous government agencies and programs including Social Security and the United States Postal Service,

[JimGant]

12 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Do a little research about the founders of CATO.   Their motives are obvious and in line with their continued efforts to demonize the Social Security system through disinformation and distortion

Yeah, you're right. Obviously they're trying to "demonize the Social Security system" by pointing out that today's negative cash flows are TODAY'S problem -- and not a problem that doesn't occur, until the Trust Fund runs out in 2033. 

 

For your reading pleasure, here's what a Google AI search on "negative cash flow with social security adds to the debt" comes up with:

 

Quote

Yes, some sources argue that Social Security's negative cash flow

 can indirectly contribute to the national debt, though it's important to understand the nuance of this relationship. 

 

Here's why:

• Social Security is largely a "pay-as-you-go" system: This means the payroll taxes paid by current workers primarily fund the benefits of current retirees.
• Trust fund investments: When Social Security's income (payroll taxes and other revenue) exceeds its expenses, the surplus is invested in special U.S. Treasury securities held in the Social Security trust funds.
• Drawing down the trust fund: For many years, Social Security ran surpluses and built up reserves in its trust funds. However, since 2010, the program has begun running cash deficits, meaning expenses exceed income. To cover this shortfall, Social Security must redeem the Treasury bonds held in its trust fund.
• Treasury's role: When Social Security redeems those bonds, the U.S. Treasury has a legal obligation to pay them back, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Treasury may need to borrow money from the public (by issuing new bonds) or raise taxes to fulfill this obligation, which can increase the publicly held portion of the national debt.
• Impact of borrowing and interest: Social Security's cash-flow deficits have amounted to significant sums over the years and are projected to continue doing so in the coming decades, potentially leading to increased borrowing by the Treasury and associated interest costs, further adding to the federal debt, according to the Cato Institute. 

•  

Important considerations:

• Social Security itself cannot directly borrow: It's legally prohibited from doing so and cannot add to the federal deficit directly.
• Trust funds as bookkeeping mechanisms: Some argue that the trust funds are essentially a bookkeeping mechanism and the real issue is the imbalance between promised benefits and the revenues available to fund them, says the Tax Policy Center.
• Other factors contributing to debt: While Social Security's financial challenges are a contributing factor to the national debt, they are not the sole driver. Other significant factors include government spending on other programs and tax policies. 

•  

In essence, Social Security's negative cash flow can create a need for the Treasury to borrow more, which, in turn, can contribute to the national debt. Addressing Social Security's long-term solvency is crucial to mitigating this potential impact. 

 

That last paragraph in this AI search is where Cato is coming from. Nefarious, only to those who believe there is just one accounting template available to address Social Security finances. 

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

Yeah, you're right. Obviously they're trying to "demonize the Social Security system" by pointing out that today's negative cash flows are TODAY'S problem -- and not a problem that doesn't occur, until the Trust Fund runs out in 2033. 

 

For your reading pleasure, here's what a Google AI search on "negative cash flow with social security adds to the debt" comes up with:

 

 

That last paragraph in this AI search is where Cato is coming from. Nefarious, only to those who believe there is just one accounting template available to address Social Security finances. 

 

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

In essence, Social Security's negative cash flow can create a need for the Treasury to borrow more, which, in turn, can contribute to the national debt. Addressing Social Security's long-term solvency is crucial to mitigating this potential impact. 

But... that last paragraph is hardly concrete evidence with its use of 'can create', 'can contribute' and 'potential impact'.  CATO is shouting it out loudly, implying it is a 'fact'.  

 

On top of that.... you asked what a trial judge would describe as a leading question.  Your AI query is actually asking AI to find articles that include your pre-conceived idea that SS shortfall is contributing to NATIONAL DEBT.

 

When I queried AI, I asked it to find errors in the CATO text.  My query should receive output that is less biased than your query.

 

Google's AI (Gemini) usually provides links from which it constructed its output.  What were the links provided for that last paragraph?  Gemini could be including biased articles in its interpretation of reality,

 

[JimGant]

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

But... that last paragraph is hardly concrete evidence with its use of 'can create', 'can contribute' and 'potential impact'.  CATO is shouting it out loudly, implying it is a 'fact'. 

And this is your 'Cato is trying to demonize SS?' Sure,It's not a fact, by you and Bernie -- and many others. So, yeah, it's obvious the jury is out on what accounting scheme should dictate Social Security's negative cash flow impact on national debt. However, that Cato is pointing out a problem that should be addressed immediately, and not when the Trust Fund runs out in 2033 - is just good public service-- and good common sense. That they're underlining the problem, by excluding intragovernmental debt in their accounting scenario -- doesn't mean they're incorrect in indentifying a real problem, requiring immediate address. Certainly, you and Bernie could agree with that.....?

[gamb00ler]

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

it's obvious the jury is out on what accounting scheme  should dictate Social Security's negative cash flow impact on national debt

only for you and CATO.... the facts are so simple and obvious.

Every redeemed GAS reduces the total amount owed by the US Gov't.  GAS were bought with 'real money' and remain as real cash equivalent until redeemed for cash.  Stop trying to downgrade the GAS to something other than legitimate Treasury securities by referring to them as IOU's.... a tactic used by CATO and you.

[JimGant]

57 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Stop trying to downgrade the GAS to something other than legitimate Treasury securities by referring to them as IOU's

Ok, pal, no problem 'til the Trust Fund runs out in 2033. 

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

Ok, pal, no problem 'til the Trust Fund runs out in 2033. 

Why do you think CATO chose to call them IOU's?.... Their agenda is blatant except to the sycophants.

 

The shortfall in FICA income that started years ago, has not yet incurred any extra expense for the US taxpayers.  Depending on Congress's decision about SS funding that may not remain true when OASI is depleted.

 

Any principal that the Treasury borrowed from the OASI has never belonged to the taxpayers.  The beneficial owner of the OASI is those employees that contributed enough to qualify for SS benefits.

 

If OASI never existed, the Treasury would have simply borrowed from someone else and the 'public debt' (as defined by you and CATO) would have been equal to the 'public debt' PLUS the amount of GAS sold by Treasury to OASI.  In the boom years of FICA collection, the Treasury simply replaced selling T-bills by instead selling GAS.

 

While OASI was growing the actual 'public debt' was temporarily reduced because Treasury was selling GAS to OASI rather than selling T-bills to the public.

 

When OASI is depleted, the 'public debt' amount will be equal to what it would have been if OASI never existed.

 

So... in the end the OASI lending and redemption of GAS will have had zero effect on 'public debt'

[JimGant]

On 8/4/2025 at 7:41 PM, gamb00ler said:

 look at the drivel CATO produces.... this article is so full or errors and misuse of terminology.  It clearly shows that they are not really up to speed on the subjects that are the basis of their articles.

By Romin Boccia (a Peter Thiel acolyte):

https://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-spending-adds-national-debt

 

She writes articles that are extremely misleading.  She comes as close to lying as possible in her articles about SS and the 'US debt'.  Her goal is not to educate but to agitate the naive and bring them into the SS hater's camp.  There 'oughta be a law! 

I wonder why I have this picture in my mind of a maniacal person, drooling, rolling steel balls -- and shouting: But the stewards didn't eat the strawberries - I know there's a duplicate key!

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

I wonder why I have this picture in my mind of a maniacal person, drooling, rolling steel balls -- and shouting: But the stewards didn't eat the strawberries - I know there's a duplicate key!

I'm sure you can find help for your problem.