re: When do Boomers take ANY accountability?

To say that analysis is woefully simplistic is
a gross understatement…

quote:

---

proves your statement that “ss doesn’t add to national debt” wrong

---

You don't understand WTF you are reading or responding to.

Let's try to simplify it for you.
As long as the SSTF remains positive, it is in surplus, IOW SS has received MORE MONEY IN, THAN IT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY OUT!
I don't care if you think MiltonEffingFreidman is telling you differently.
You are addressing monetary flow (deficit), rather the program in total (surplus).

As you are an apparent dolt, lets try to make this very simple.

You place $100 in a Bank Savings Account guaranteeing a 3% ROI.
The bank does not just keep those dollars in a vault.
It invests the money.
While it makes 6%/yr on your $100 in its own conservative investments, it retains an OBLIGATION to repay you according to the 3% terms.

So 45yrs later, the bank's total OBLIGATION to you has grown to ~$350.
You tell the bank to repay its OBLIGATION at $25/yr x 14yrs.

If, after 4 yrs ($100), they tell you your account is in deficit, call the police, because you've been robbed.

In fact, you could draw off another 10yrs before further withdrawals exceeded the bank's repayment obligation, i.e., your account was in deficit.

---

To bring that hypothetical home, ROI on SS over the past 45yrs is ~3%
(less than 10-yr T-Bills)
So a 22y/o contributing $100, then retiring 45yrs later is owed, not $100, but $350 in nominal terms (which is ~$100 in real terms).
Payouts are calculated on an actuarial basis with life expectancy at 81 years (14 years after retirement at age 67).

When I said "if, after 4 yrs ($100), they tell you your account is in deficit, call the police, because you've been robbed," that is equivalent to the point in ~2009 you referenced.

2009 is the point at which more payouts had come from Social Security, in nominal terms, than had been paid in. In financial terms, the nominal comparison is a nonsensical observation. It's nonsensical for a couple of reasons. (1) SS has an obligation to repay input plus interest. (2) Nominal money, over time, does not account for inflation. In other words, a 1980 dollar equals about $3.50 today. So if someone simply repaid 45 years later, exactly what they had borrowed initially, the recipient of the payback would be significantly in the hole. Clear?

I don't know how to explain this to you more simply than that.

ETA: Social Security is a debt instrument. Insofar as increasing or reducing the debt, the equation is dependent on cost of carry. E.g., If cost of carry on the debt averages 5%, but a particular instrument (SS) only has a cost of carry at 3%, that instrument is not only not adding to the debt, it is lowering what the debt might otherwise be.

Social Security stands as the cheapest, most reliable, consistent borrow that the federal government has at its disposal (that is why the federal government will never give it up). As I alluded above, over a 45 year span, Social Security return on investment significantly lags that of 10y T-bill ROI over the same timespan. That negative differential constitutes a reduction of deficit/debt rather than an increase of it. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of a terrible ROI awarded to obligatory program contributors.

quote:

---

2009 is the point at which more payouts had come from Social Security, in nominal terms, than had been paid in. In financial terms, the nominal comparison is a nonsensical observation. It's nonsensical for a couple of reasons. (1) SS has an obligation to repay input plus interest. (2) Nominal money, over time, does not account for inflation. In other words, a 1980 dollar equals about $3.50 today. So if someone simply repaid 45 years later, exactly what they had borrowed initially, the recipient of the payback would be significantly in the hole. Clear? I don't know how to explain this to you more simply than that.

---

LINK

LINK

I know how it’s supposed to work dipshit but your the one believing govt bs how its self funding and how the surplus keeps it from adding to govt debt which is totally untrue

LINK

You aren’t as smart as you think you are or try to portray on here

quote:

---

You aren’t as smart as you think you are or try to portray on here

---

That may be. But every link you are citing, factually aligns exactly with what I am telling you. You continue to miss that.

E.g., "there is no money in the Social Security trust fund." No kidding! Every penny contributed to Social Security is immediately converted into a US debt obligation. It is then sent to the general fund and spent. Poof! That money is gone. The only thing remaining in the Social Security trust fund is an "IOU." Just as would be the case if someone had bought a 30 year treasury. But the significance of that IOU is it is a debt obligation which in accordance with the 14th amendment "shall not be questioned."

quote:

---

But every link you are citing, factually aligns exactly with what I am telling you. You continue to miss that.

---

Yea the parts that tell you how ss works but do you totally miss all the analysis of the problems? Apparently you do
You’re just repeating how it works or supposed to work without taking in any regard of the problems it causes relating to the federal deficit and boomer’s roles in those problems

Yet another thread calling out the boomer generation while each generation has its faults, you do realize that this generation includes many that died or came back changed forever fighting in Vietnam? Again, GFY OP.

quote:

---

you do realize that this generation includes many that died or came back changed forever fighting in Vietnam? Again, GFY OP.

---

You could say the same about millennials and the Iraqi and afghan wars

Does that mean they can’t be criticized?

quote:

---

SS is a federal statute not constitutional public’s debt and has the Supreme Court has already ruled that it’s not an unbreakable contract

---

Not really. The court ruled that an individual in certain circumstances can forfeit his right to demand Social Security. The same is true regarding bearing firearms, etc.

The contention is that the relevant debt obligation is solely an issue between Treasury and the SSTF. As the argument goes, obligation to the SSTF is contradistinct from any obligation to individuals. But, even if that contrived argument held, it is a difference without a distinction. The SSTF/SSA has its own fixed obligation, and the 14th A requires Congress to fund it.

Again, the pesky debt obligation is an aspect unique to Social Security. The unique debt structure is not accidental. It is intentional, and important for you to understand. Because the intent is foundational to the basis of Social Security's federal funding purpose, rather than any social/retirement benefit. Social Security, from its inception, was marketed as something it is not. Social Security is not, nor was it ever, a primary social retirement benefit. Social Security is, and always was, a program to enable federal funding of general budget items.

FDR was out of New Deal money entering his second term. He created SS to fund 40% of his 2nd term New Deal. It has been used that way ever since the 1930s. It will continue to be used that way as long as there is a Social Security trust fund surplus. At the same time, it will be marketed to both old people, and people like yourself, as a "retirement" benefit.

However, whether one believes Social Security is a retirement benefit, or "welfare," or "redistribution," matters little to Washington DC, as any of those beliefs reflect the thought that Social Security is at least a benefit for a significant portion of the population. I'll say it again, the only SS beneficiary is Uncle Sam. If you think otherwise, you are a patsy at the poker table. Retirees, and folks like yourself who are paying in, are victims of the same SS rip off.

Were Social Security a simple paygo welfare program for old people, as you seem to believe, it would be handled through direct redistribution, just as is general welfare, SNAP, medicaid, etc.. There would be no need for a cumbersome debt obligation structure.

No, but boomers get lumped into one pile more than other generations. Certain aspects of the generation, such as shrieking white, grey haired women attending the 'No King' rallies for example. Blindly placing all from one generation into one pile is ignorant and short-sighted - and unfortunately is the case regarding the boomer generation.

quote:

---

Boomers continue to work, long after they should have retired. So we are stuck with younger generations who should have filled their higher earning roles being stuck in junior positions because there is no vacancy.

---

If the younger generations were worth a shite the boomers would be pushed out for the younger, cheaper labor..