American Social Security Reform, Questions Welcomed

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The word redeem means to recover ownership of. Who is the US going to recover ownership from whether they are T-Bills or special issue securities?

I had to click on this post as I assumed it was a response to me.

What the **** are you trying to say?

When the SS trust funds redeem the special issue securities, they take a load of them to the treasury department. The treasury dept. adds up the face value on these securities. The treasury dept. then gives SS cash money equal to the total face value of the securities being redeemed. The treasury dept. rips up the securities and SS gives the cash to its beneficiaries. Simple enough?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I've never understood why Social Security is forced to invest its money solely in the federal government.

In Canada the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and various provincial plans which perform the same functions that SS does wrt retirement benefits etc. all invest in a combination of private financial markets as well as buying government debt.

SS in the US has been used as an end-run mechanism to allow the federal government to borrow much more at lower interest rates than it would otherwise have been able to.

It's to let the politicians spend more money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
When the SS trust funds redeem the special issue securities, they take a load of them to the treasury department. The treasury dept. adds up the face value on these securities. The treasury dept. then gives SS cash money equal to the total face value of the securities being redeemed. The treasury dept. rips up the securities and SS gives the cash to its beneficiaries. Simple enough?

The word to use is not redeem. It's transfer. The reason that I'm making an issue is to try to show some people (not necessarily you) that there are no assets in this 'trust fund.' It doesn't matter what is in the account. Whatever it is is not an asset.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's right. It's not an investment. It's a way to use assets to cover expenses to lower your borrowing costs.

You're driving me nuts again Kid.

From SS's point of view the securities are an investment. They return more money over time than was invested.

From the US government's point of view the securities are a means to borrow money.

The problem is that SS has been told by the US govt that it is only allowed to invest in special-issue securities from the Treasury Dept because the same people run both SS and the US govt.

But your quibbling over definitions is useless and merely confuses this issue. Do you have something substantive to say? You get one more chance and then I don't click on any more of your posts this thread.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's to let the politicians spend more money.

I know that. My point is that you obviously aren't doing enough as a nation to hold the politicians' feet to the fire and to force them to run SS for the benefit of contributors instead of for the benefit of politicians.

[Kidlicious]

In order to have a redemption you need two entities. The Treasury Department and SS are the same entity. The word to use is transfer.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The word to use is not redeem. It's transfer. The reason that I'm making an issue is to try to show some people (not necessarily you) that there are no assets in this 'trust fund.' It doesn't matter what is in the account. Whatever it is is not an asset.

Yes it is, you frigging knucklehead.

It is a ****ing asset. Just like any other bond is an asset.

You've used up your last chance. Have fun talking to yourself.

[Kidlicious]

Assets are created when the govt sells bonds and uses the proceeds to cover expenses. Assets are not created when the govt collects taxes and uses the proceeds to cover expenses and then puts it's own debt in the account. There are no assets in the trust fund. It's a liability account.

[Zkribbler]

Q: The Bush plan of converting Social Security to private investments is patterned after programs in Chile, Argentina, Britain, Sweden and Singapore. Some of these plans have been in place for decades now. How are they working?

A: They're not. Many retirees are finding their returns on the privatized pension plans are far below the guaranteed payments of the old government-run programs. Thus, they're being forced onto welfare or onto depending upon their children.

Q: Why, then, does Bush want to institute a program that is a proven failure?

A:

[Kuciwalker]

Z - he's supposed to ASK the questions, not answer them

[DarkCloud]

Here's the answers I have:
(reproduced without newspaper references and reworded when possible for copyright reasons)

when asked “If privatization wasn’t an option, what would you recommend to improve social security’s long-term viability,” he answered that “There isn’t any urgency to do anything right now if we don’t have personal retirement accounts.”

Zkribbler- here's the answer to that:
The US System won't let people go wrong as Br, Chile because it will only allow people to "invest in 4-5 broadbased mutual funds."

Oerdin-
about the yearly funding, I didn't get a straight answer but my research revealed this:

$754 billion in transition costs... Yearly managemnet will be low... like the Thrift Savings Accounts which can be researched at http://www.tsp.gov/

He actually seemed to imply that we might lose government jobs because of this but said that more jobs would be created due to economic gains earned by stock market gains... thus it will overall help the US economy.

-
I didn't get a chance to ask him about gay marriage, but my question would have been:

Since you said that sodomy "undermines the basic tenents of our society" and hurts "strong, healthy families" as you stated in an April 7th, 2004 Associated Press interview, and you also stated that you only hate the actual act of homosexuality, but not the persons committing it- do you think that adopted children can be brought up in a loving family, even if their one adoptive parent is gay?

As for will enough people participate in it.
80% 20 year olds said yes
70% 30 yr olds...
But he acknowledged that these numbers may be inflated.

He also stated that he wanted lower income workers to get bigger possible stock market accounts since the system is supposed to ensure that people don't retire in poverty so therefore he could empower them... allowing "us to be flexible to those who are most in need"

[DarkCloud]

He was VERY much against means testing, arguing that "means testing raises taxes on people whose sepending is important to society." 31% taxing them to 51% taxing them. This will hurt the economy as people spend les and may "discourage people to work longer" etc.

[Dinner]

Interesting, thanks. BTW the $754 billion number is a typical government lie. Bush originally put that number out then back tracked and admited the costs would be atleast $1 trillion and the Congression Budget Office (CBO) said the costs were going to be at least $2 trillion.

The market anaylists are ussually better at estimating costs then the politicians (if for no reason other then it's not in their interests to lie) and they're saying anything from $3-$5 trillion unless benifits are cut. That's just the government's costs and doesn't count the fees the banks and brokers will charge individuals.