US Social Security Administration Out of Control

Self ^ | May 21, 2022 | Self

[Svartalfiar]

But none of that is relevant. SS accounting doesn’t take into account that the dollars are ‘borrowed’ for everything else, all it looks at is what’s supposed to be in their account (reserves), and cash flow in/out. That is what is all supposed to be adding up to zero by 2035. There are no roads or schools or Ukraines in that.

[cgbg]

“if you look only at the numbers, and ignore the dollar signs, you can get a picture of what it is, theoretically, doing.”

You can study the mating habits of Unicorns if you want—and see what they are theoretically doing...

;-)

But—the politicians play this game to scam the public—they have been lying for decades and they are lying now.

Don’t enable their fraud with “theoretical” discussions.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

all it looks at is what’s supposed to be in their account (reserves), and cash flow in/out.

Except it is not.

They are using the money for other things that fall outside of what you and I would consider the SS or even SSI (although that is a major drain) mandate.

When you are not using the money as you are suppose to there is never enough.

[Svartalfiar]

But—the politicians play this game to scam the public—they have been lying for decades and they are lying now.

Don’t enable their fraud with “theoretical” discussions.

It doesn't matter. The practical numbers only enforce my point even more, but the theoretical is best-case scenario for Teddy Bear's statements, and even those don't support SS solvency. That's my point.

[Svartalfiar]

They are using the money for other things that fall outside of what you and I would consider the SS or even SSI (although that is a major drain) mandate.

When you are not using the money as you are suppose to there is never enough.

That's irrelevant. My point is that even using the numbers that don't include all the money being borrowed, the numbers that assume that SS retains all the $$$, you STILL run into SS being zeroed out in a decade. How does that happen if, as you said, the overwhelming majority of people have a net pay in to the system? How does that money theoretically disappear?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Are you assuming that the money that goes into SS only goes out to SS?

[Svartalfiar]

Are you assuming that the money that goes into SS only goes out to SS?

I assume that is what SS assumes when publishing their yearly reports.

If not, where does all the $$ go? Where do all the poeple's $$ come from?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I assume that is what SS assumes when publishing their yearly reports.

No.

If not, where does all the $$ go?

Administrative expenses. You can hide so much under that label. Office drones, buildings, art work, advertising, slush funds, executive jaunts to exotic locations, you know... the usual.

Where do all the poeple's $$ come from?

They probably work for it, or do you mean where does the money paid out to people who are on SS comes from? In that case it comes from the many government thefts.... er... taxes... I meant taxes.

[Svartalfiar]

Administrative expenses. You can hide so much under that label. Office drones, buildings, art work, advertising, slush funds, executive jaunts to exotic locations, you know... the usual.

True. But you're telling me that admin costs are going to take $2.9T (yes, trillion) in the reserve "fund" down to zero in ten years? There's numbers missing somewhere in there... Obviously admin costs aren't currently hurting it that much, since SS has run a surplus for the majority of its life, so what changes in this coming decade?


They probably work for it, or do you mean where does the money paid out to people who are on SS comes from? In that case it comes from the many government thefts.... er... taxes... I meant taxes.

Yes, I mean paid out to recipients. And I know where the money actually comes from, my question is on the theoretical side (as if SS actually maintained these $$ as a dedicated fund, which is how the SS yearly/quarterly statements are published as). If every participant is generating a net income for SS, then their money is what generates the fund for their "account", and there would be no need for any Ponzi setup. So the number of people paying in vs paying out shouldn't make much difference in the total SS bank account, as each individual account should be almost entirely self-sufficient, as you claim above, correct? So how is SS suddenly going net-negative, when as above, admin costs haven't made it negative before?