This is good

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Richard I don't know if that was your intention, but the first sentance of
your post (which was a reply to my post)seems to be aimed at disparaging
what I said. Then you go and simply reinforce the points I made.
If I read your intention correctly, you might go back and re-read what I
said and tell me where what I said and what you said differ in fundamental
terms.

Bob weinberger


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:36:41 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

Richard I don't know if that was your intention, but the first sentance of
your post (which was a reply to my post)seems to be aimed at disparaging
what I said.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "disparaging" it, but it is incorrect.
There is money out there earning interest and the size is very relevant.
The money via "SS tax" is flowing in all the time, but (essentially) it
immediately flows back out, "loaned" to other budget items/agencies/etc.
as an "investment," therefore, the size is VERY relevant. Some actually
flows back in when some new bureaucrat actually pays attention to this
kind of everyday business stuff and pays down "short-term non-capital
badcompany debt," but it is immediately "loaned" back out again.

Then you go and simply reinforce the points I made.
If I read your intention correctly, you might go back and re-read what I
said and tell me where what I said and what you said differ in fundamental
terms.

See above.

TC,
R

Bob weinberger


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

wrote in message
...
I wouldn't go so far as to say "disparaging" it, but it is incorrect.
There is money out there earning interest and the size is very relevant.
The money via "SS tax" is flowing in all the time, but (essentially) it
immediately flows back out, "loaned" to other budget items/agencies/etc.
as an "investment," therefore, the size is VERY relevant. Some actually
flows back in when some new bureaucrat actually pays attention to this
kind of everyday business stuff and pays down "short-term non-capital
badcompany debt," but it is immediately "loaned" back out again.

Richard, you make a distinction without substance. The size of the Trust
Fund is only relevant in bookeeping terms, i.e. which *government account*
the money is tied to. It still represents a government obligation no matter
which pocket it comes out of. As the current SS obligations grow, there is
less money for Congress to "borrow" to spend on other things. They really
worry about the time when there is no SS surplus and they not only have none
to "borrow", but are obligated to pay money owed to the fund in order to
meet current obligations. That money will need to come from somewhere - e.g.
either reduce SS benefits, increase SS or other (e.g.income) taxes, reduce
other government programs, or increase debt.

Bob Weinberger

* As a side note: During tours at the Pentagon in the Navy Budget Office, I
was constantly amused and appalled at how much time was spent ensuring that
funds were spent from the "proper" accounts relative to the time spent
ensuring that the funds were productively spent on worthwhile projects.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:09:58 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I wouldn't go so far as to say "disparaging" it, but it is incorrect.
There is money out there earning interest and the size is very relevant.
The money via "SS tax" is flowing in all the time, but (essentially) it
immediately flows back out, "loaned" to other budget items/agencies/etc.
as an "investment," therefore, the size is VERY relevant. Some actually
flows back in when some new bureaucrat actually pays attention to this
kind of everyday business stuff and pays down "short-term non-capital
badcompany debt," but it is immediately "loaned" back out again.

Richard, you make a distinction without substance. The size of the Trust
Fund is only relevant in bookeeping terms, i.e. which *government account*
the money is tied to.

Er, no. As the tax receipts' input and "investment" occurs constantly,
and the "bonds"/IOUs are at a variety of interest rates and maturity
dates, the size and, generally, scope does matter. Moreover, the money
is out there and earning interest. You may be confusing the money
(principal) _earning_ interest with the interest earned actually being
paid - the interest is being earned daily and bonds are maturing and
interest is being paid to the SSA constantly. The problem is that they
continually lend it back out again to the same and only borrower. Look
at it like this - let's say you own a bank and Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett, your only customers, each deposit 1 million US with your bank.
They then come in and say, "Banker Bob, loan us each a mil at 6%." Sure,
you say. You know they are good for a measly mil so you loan them the
money. And sure enough, in a year they come in and pay you back with
interest. However, they immediately say, "Bob, now loan us 1,060,000 at
6%," and you say, "Um, well, how about letting me keep my interest, but
I'll happily loan you another mil?" "Sorry, nope, we want the
1,060,000," they say and you reluctantly agree, thinking the next year
will be your year. The next year, they pay right on time and clean you
right back out. So, you say, OK, I'll just sell this paper to another
investor, but the guys tell you to read the contracts - you can't
because the IOUs you accepted are "special" and can't be sold, bartered,
or otherwise negotiated.

OK, at what point do you begin to say, "hey, wait a damned minute,
here..." They are still, as of this point, "performing loans," earning
interest and all, but Bob's Bank has jack **** to show for it all.

And then, it really gets good - they come in after several years and
say, "Bob, we've always paid our debts and now, we'd like to borrow 100
mil, but don't worry, we know it's a bigger loan, so we're prepared to
make it worth your while - we'll pay 7%..." And then, it gets even
better. One day, they come in and say, "You know, Bob, we're going to
die eventually, and we'd sure hate to see you stuck, so we're going to
pay you off in full and we're not going to borrow another dime..."
Halle-****in-lu-yahoo, you think! "We've set up 'Trust Funds' and
they'll do all the borrowing, just like us, but better - they'll borrow
5 time as much as we ever did personally" WHAT!?! "Oh, don't worry,
they'll NEVER die - they'll go on being good little borrowers long after
we're all dead...you, too, Bob...and Bob, you really ought to go see our
tailor - it won't do for a prosperous banker like you to be in that same
shiny suit day after day...Bob...you seem to be crying, Bob...why are
you crying, Bob...?"

It still represents a government obligation no matter
which pocket it comes out of. As the current SS obligations grow, there is
less money for Congress to "borrow" to spend on other things.

Er, again, not exactly - it's worse than that, because the borrowing is
in fact earning interest and so, again, the size does matter a great
deal.

They really
worry about the time when there is no SS surplus and they not only have none
to "borrow",

Um, that's not when anyone needs to start worrying...

but are obligated to pay money owed to the fund in order to
meet current obligations.

AHA! _THAT'S_ when the poo is gonna hit the whirler...

That money will need to come from somewhere - e.g.
either reduce SS benefits, increase SS or other (e.g.income) taxes, reduce
other government programs, or increase debt.

Lessee here...**** off AARP and a passel of old folks, **** off welfare
recipients, **** off any number of Government tit-for-tat titsucklers,
or start yelling about taxing "Big Business" and "the rich"...what will
they do, what will they do....I wonder...I wonder...

HTH,
R

Bob Weinberger

* As a side note: During tours at the Pentagon in the Navy Budget Office, I
was constantly amused and appalled at how much time was spent ensuring that
funds were spent from the "proper" accounts relative to the time spent
ensuring that the funds were productively spent on worthwhile projects.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

wrote in message
...
Er, no. As the tax receipts' input and "investment" occurs constantly,
and the "bonds"/IOUs are at a variety of interest rates and maturity
dates, the size and, generally, scope does matter. Moreover, the money
is out there and earning interest. You may be confusing the money
(principal) _earning_ interest with the interest earned actually being
paid - the interest is being earned daily and bonds are maturing and
interest is being paid to the SSA constantly. The problem is that they
continually lend it back out again to the same and only borrower. Look
at it like this - let's say you own a bank and Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett, your only customers, each deposit 1 million US with your bank.
They then come in and say, "Banker Bob, loan us each a mil at 6%." Sure,
you say. You know they are good for a measly mil so you loan them the
money. And sure enough, in a year they come in and pay you back with
interest. However, they immediately say, "Bob, now loan us 1,060,000 at
6%," and you say, "Um, well, how about letting me keep my interest, but
I'll happily loan you another mil?" "Sorry, nope, we want the
1,060,000," they say and you reluctantly agree, thinking the next year
will be your year. The next year, they pay right on time and clean you
right back out. So, you say, OK, I'll just sell this paper to another
investor, but the guys tell you to read the contracts - you can't
because the IOUs you accepted are "special" and can't be sold, bartered,
or otherwise negotiated.

OK, at what point do you begin to say, "hey, wait a damned minute,
here..." They are still, as of this point, "performing loans," earning
interest and all, but Bob's Bank has jack **** to show for it all.

And then, it really gets good - they come in after several years and
say, "Bob, we've always paid our debts and now, we'd like to borrow 100
mil, but don't worry, we know it's a bigger loan, so we're prepared to
make it worth your while - we'll pay 7%..." And then, it gets even
better. One day, they come in and say, "You know, Bob, we're going to
die eventually, and we'd sure hate to see you stuck, so we're going to
pay you off in full and we're not going to borrow another dime..."
Halle-****in-lu-yahoo, you think! "We've set up 'Trust Funds' and
they'll do all the borrowing, just like us, but better - they'll borrow
5 time as much as we ever did personally" WHAT!?! "Oh, don't worry,
they'll NEVER die - they'll go on being good little borrowers long after
we're all dead...you, too, Bob...and Bob, you really ought to go see our
tailor - it won't do for a prosperous banker like you to be in that same
shiny suit day after day...Bob...you seem to be crying, Bob...why are
you crying, Bob...?"

Your analogy has two fatal flaws.

1. Gates' and Buffet's sources of money come from a different source than my
bank's funds, while SS and the rest of government get their income primarily
from one source - the american taxpayer.

2. Gates and Buffet didn't sign a contract with my deposters that obligates
the bank (and in a sense would also obligate Gates and Buffet) to pay some
of the bank's depositers amounts that are mandated by Gates and Buffet (and
over which I have no real independant control), regardless of whether or not
I have enough new depositers to cover the mandated payouts.

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:21:47 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Er, no. As the tax receipts' input and "investment" occurs constantly,
and the "bonds"/IOUs are at a variety of interest rates and maturity
dates, the size and, generally, scope does matter. Moreover, the money
is out there and earning interest. You may be confusing the money
(principal) _earning_ interest with the interest earned actually being
paid - the interest is being earned daily and bonds are maturing and
interest is being paid to the SSA constantly. The problem is that they
continually lend it back out again to the same and only borrower. Look
at it like this - let's say you own a bank and Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett, your only customers, each deposit 1 million US with your bank.
They then come in and say, "Banker Bob, loan us each a mil at 6%." Sure,
you say. You know they are good for a measly mil so you loan them the
money. And sure enough, in a year they come in and pay you back with
interest. However, they immediately say, "Bob, now loan us 1,060,000 at
6%," and you say, "Um, well, how about letting me keep my interest, but
I'll happily loan you another mil?" "Sorry, nope, we want the
1,060,000," they say and you reluctantly agree, thinking the next year
will be your year. The next year, they pay right on time and clean you
right back out. So, you say, OK, I'll just sell this paper to another
investor, but the guys tell you to read the contracts - you can't
because the IOUs you accepted are "special" and can't be sold, bartered,
or otherwise negotiated.

OK, at what point do you begin to say, "hey, wait a damned minute,
here..." They are still, as of this point, "performing loans," earning
interest and all, but Bob's Bank has jack **** to show for it all.

And then, it really gets good - they come in after several years and
say, "Bob, we've always paid our debts and now, we'd like to borrow 100
mil, but don't worry, we know it's a bigger loan, so we're prepared to
make it worth your while - we'll pay 7%..." And then, it gets even
better. One day, they come in and say, "You know, Bob, we're going to
die eventually, and we'd sure hate to see you stuck, so we're going to
pay you off in full and we're not going to borrow another dime..."
Halle-****in-lu-yahoo, you think! "We've set up 'Trust Funds' and
they'll do all the borrowing, just like us, but better - they'll borrow
5 time as much as we ever did personally" WHAT!?! "Oh, don't worry,
they'll NEVER die - they'll go on being good little borrowers long after
we're all dead...you, too, Bob...and Bob, you really ought to go see our
tailor - it won't do for a prosperous banker like you to be in that same
shiny suit day after day...Bob...you seem to be crying, Bob...why are
you crying, Bob...?"

Your analogy has two fatal flaws.

Sorry, no.

1. Gates' and Buffet's sources of money come from a different source than my
bank's funds, while SS and the rest of government get their income primarily
from one source - the american taxpayer.

Nope. I didn't state where their money came from, so you can't state
that it is a different source, but it doesn't matter anyway, but the
biggie is that you didn't read very closely: your bank has no other
funds. They are your only customers, hence the use of the phrase, "your
only customers." And while "the american taxpayer" is the primary
source of the revenue in the general fund, he is not the primary source
of the SSA's funds - remember that employers pay the same rate in FICA,
etc., plus there is income from the Trust Fund workings, etc. (and that
which is paid by individuals as SE Tax doesn't "tip the scales" for a
variety of reasons).

2. Gates and Buffet didn't sign a contract with my deposters that obligates
the bank (and in a sense would also obligate Gates and Buffet) to pay some
of the bank's depositers amounts that are mandated by Gates and Buffet (and
over which I have no real independant control), regardless of whether or not
I have enough new depositers to cover the mandated payouts.

No, they didn't sign your example contract, but it non sequitur because
you have no other depositors to whom you must or in fact could pay
anything, and you do not have "new depositors" - again, see above
your only customers. And while I think you are alluding to an implied
contract with the current and future recipients of contributory "Social
Security," you might wish to refer to your copy of that contract. Don't
have a copy? Well, shoot, that's OK, it really isn't all that much of a
contract...well, unless you're the, um, party of the first part...

And since it was merely an example, I'll let you in on something - if
you wanna be technically correct, it has one REALLY big fatal flaw - you
don't own a bank with Warren and Bill as its only customers...

HTH,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Oct 29, 3:36*pm, "Bob Weinberger" wrote:
SNIP
He just likes to say words like "Geez" and "innertube" and "come in
your mouth." Its a Yalie thing I guess. It's not personal, just
obnoxious.

He is right about the in/out/fund movements/interest etc. But it
doesn't change the basic outline. ie that the demographic trends make
the present pay as you go system untenable at the current tax rates,
and wouldn't it be loverly if the surpluses over the years had not
been put into the general funds, where Congress and the Pres spent it.

Where each of us is more likely to part company is what should be
done. I do believe the next admin and Congress should and will make
some changes.

Dave

On Oct 29, 3:19*pm, wrote:

So when the R's were in power under Newt and Hastard and the Hammer
all those years you were on their case to pony up with a "real trust
fund" right? Like you called them and raised hell and all like that
right? You yelled at em and Bush right? You said now we are in
control, we will fix this thing right? You said "W we all jus got to
fix it." I guess I missed all that effort you put in on this issue the
last 8 years.

Wow. How come it isn't done? How come the deficit tripled?

Dave
Oh, you mean that its up to the Ds to fix it. Again.
Sheeeech. You guys need to spend less time spinning and more time
doing.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R


Actually Greenspan was just continuing tradition. LBJ was the first to
decide that you could promote SS as a retirement system and raised the rates
to get more money for the Federal Government. And I think the Chairman of
the Fed then was William McChesney Martin Jr.