can someone explain taxes/budget/expenses

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Everybody wants to pick on Social Security

The problem with the Social Security Trust Fund is the government has been borrowing trillions of dollars
from it since 1942 with the borrowing sky rocketingfrom the 70's on.
There are no $$$ left because of it, a Ponzi scheme for sure.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The problem with the Social Security Trust Fund is the government has been borrowing trillions of dollars
from it since 1942 with the borrowing sky rocketingfrom the 70's on.
There are no $$$ left because of it, a Ponzi scheme for sure.

Not sure that's really accurate. There's a lot of money in the trust on paper, but it's invested in the US and shows up as debt.

The problem isn't as much SS as it is overall fiscal health.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[albin35]

The opposite of progress
Is Congress.

Vote E'm Out.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure that's really accurate. There's a lot of money in the trust on paper, but it's invested in the US and shows up as debt.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul spent his money and now Peter
is broke.

If the money was kept in a "locked box" from the beginning Peter would still have his money
and Paul would have to live within his means.

The true reason for our financial condition is, we don't live
within our means.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure that's really accurate. There's a lot of money in the trust on paper, but it's invested in the US and shows up as debt.

The problem isn't as much SS as it is overall fiscal health.(it's an unsustainable redistribution scheme..a disaster)Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was a lot of money in the Bernie Maidoff trust on paper but it was mostly "invested"(spent)......the "Trust Fund" was invested into the massive expansion of the welfare state and the Great Society(aka Road to Ruin)...that "investment" should really pay off


[QUOTE=spence;837478] I guess it depends on if you believe in the full faith and credit of the USA. Good thing we have cash-flow.


"cash flow"

printing record amounts of money that does not exist
borrowing record amounts to pay for things that you can never afford

"cash flow"

Bernie Maidoff had "cash flow"

let the nationwide dependent class protests begin

[spence]

That's a pretty lame response.

[QUOTE=scottw;837544]there was a lot of money in the Bernie Maidoff trust on paper but it was mostly "invested"(spent)......the "Trust Fund" was invested into the massive expansion of the welfare state and the Great Society(aka Road to Ruin)...that "investment" should really pay off

Originally Posted by spence

I guess it depends on if you believe in the full faith and credit of the USA. Good thing we have cash-flow.


"cash flow"

printing record amounts of money that does not exist
borrowing record amounts to pay for things that you can never afford

"cash flow"

Bernie Maidoff had "cash flow"

let the nationwide dependent class protests begin

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;837563]That's a pretty lame response.

Originally Posted by scottw

there was a lot of money in the Bernie Maidoff trust on paper but it was mostly "invested"(spent)......the "Trust Fund" was invested into the massive expansion of the welfare state and the Great Society(aka Road to Ruin)...that "investment" should really pay off



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, the assertions were ridicuolus sooooo...I guess it was a proportionate response....

the protests have begun....btw

From an economic standpoint, the question of whether the trust fund is fact or fiction comes down to whether the trust fund contributes to national savings or not.[16] If $1 added to the fund increases national savings by $1, the trust fund is real. If $1 added to the fund increases national savings by $0, the trust fund is not real. A substantial body of economic research argues that the trust funds have led to only a small to modest increase in national savings and that the bulk of the trust fund has been spent.[16][17][18][19] Others suggest a more significant savings effect.[20]

If the Social Security Trust Fund causes government spending to be higher and/or income tax rates to be lower, then the trust fund is not contributing to national savings. No money is being saved. On the other hand, if government spending and tax rates aren't affected by the existence of the trust fund, then the trust fund has contributed to national savings. If trust fund increases national savings, then it really is a trust fund and has fulfilled its purpose. This has been the subject of considerable controversy.


The economic question is not whether the bonds represent legal obligations that will be fulfilled, the economic question is whether the U.S. bonds held by Social Security represent savings by allowing Social Security taxes collected in the past to reduce the need for taxes in the future. Was the money added to the fund in 1984 actually saved so that it could be spent on a retiring baby boomer in 2020 without a tax increase? If the only way for the federal government to repay the bonds held by Social Security is by raising taxes in 2020, this suggests that the excess money collected in 1980 was spent on other government activities, not saved by Social Security. Those(fools) who believe the trust fund is real would say that tax increases would have been even higher without the trust fund.

this sounds very familiar.."if it weren't for me and my spending, things would have been much worse"

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure that's really accurate. There's a lot of money in the trust on paper, but it's invested in the US and shows up as debt.

The problem isn't as much SS as it is overall fiscal health.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

IOU's are not real money. That's what replaced the $$$ they stole.

Brian's right. Unemployment is another area of wasted $$$. 99 weeks and running......

There's a huge sign on a little store here in Cambridge. I'll take a picture for you. It says " WICs checks accepted , play the lottery".

I went in...No baby fornula for sale....surprise!!!!

[scottw]

this says it all

The Social Security Trust Fund is the means by which the federal government of the United States accounts for excess paid-in contributions from workers and employers to the Social Security system that are not required to fund current benefit payments to retirees, survivors, and the disabled or to pay administrative expenses.

The trust fund contains the securities that will be redeemed to make benefit payments in the future when contributions derived from payroll taxes and self-employment contributions no longer are sufficient to fully fund then-current benefit payments. (The controversy over its meaningfulness is a topic of the sustainability of the unified Federal budget.)

Paid-in contributions that exceed the amount required to fully fund current payments to beneficiaries are invested in securities issued by the federal government. The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt.[1] The portion of the national debt that is not considered "publicly held" represents the obligations incurred by the government to itself, the bulk of which consists of the government's obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund.

the term "scheme" is appropriate


just think about the masses that will mobilize in 2102 to save their entitlements!!!!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

IOU's are not real money. That's what replaced the $$$ they stole.

Brian's right. Unemployment is another area of wasted $$$. 99 weeks and running......

There's a huge sign on a little store here in Cambridge. I'll take a picture for you. It says " WICs checks accepted , play the lottery".

I went in...No baby fornula for sale....surprise!!!!

I agree w/ Bryan as well, these programs should only serve those with demonstrated need and the limits need to be changed drastically...unfortunately, to politicians.... demonstrated need, is the need to pile bodies into these programs to create greater dependence to ensure their own or their party's viability down the road....government measures the success of their social programs strictly by the size of their budgets and the number of people..legal or illegal that are dependent on them....

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure that's really accurate. There's a lot of money in the trust on paper, but it's invested in the US and shows up as debt.

The problem isn't as much SS as it is overall fiscal health.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It depends on if you lump it all in one bucket, and thats why i started this post, its very misleading.
If this was a business and you had a few different product lines, your overall financial picture would include the revenue and expense from all products. However if you wanted to fix the problems you focus on the products that are not selling or too expensive to produce. Looking at the US financial picture, its SS and Medicare. The data doenst show this but I bet if you took all the income (payroll taxes) we pay for SS and Medicare away and the programs. We could lower our fed taxes and still pay all of the other pieces of the pie. The problem is not govt expense and income tax (which is what 99% of the bitching is), the problem is that those 2 programs are not sustaiinable - the income is not covering the expense.