Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/29/2025 11:07:04 AM PDT by reaganator
First off, I want to be told how I am wrong. For many decades, when there was a surplus to the Social Security contributions this money was moved to the general fund and spent. In place of this spent money are $2.7 trillion of U.S. Treasury Notes in the Social Security Trust Fund Reserve. To redeem these treasury notes that merely represent the spent surplus Social Security contributions new money must be collect from taxpayers or federal deficit spending exercised. The $2.7 trillion of U.S. Treasury Notes cannot be used to demonstrate the solvency of Social Security which is often done.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The result? A huge cost from the taxpayers up front to pay those who opt for the lump sum (assuming that'd be more than the current amount in the overall SS fund). But how much are we talking about? Any worse than the multiple trillions in new spending for stupid stuff Congress has passed over the past 10 years? The huge up front cost would pay off whatever present or future SS recipients to cash out ... but the benefit (to the SS fund managers / taxpayers) is it would quit kicking the can down the road and prevent the Ponzi scheme from geometrically growing larger and larger every few years. Another benefit, at least to the people wise with money, is that those who invest that extra bump in their paychecks would have investments that grow way more than inflation, way better than SS benefits do. Yet another benefit, from those unwise with money, is the extra bump in their worker paychecks would be money spent on other things (stimulating the economy).
The “General Fund”……..there’s your problem.
Social Security is in deficit spending currently, and regardless of the “investment type” that the current fund $$ is invested in it is still running deficits (unless you could find some investment that yields 100% year after year for all time)(all-time average yield on the S.S. “special T-Bills” is around 6%).
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/intRates.html
Current SS fund balance:
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html
Your prior thread on the topic:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4213624/posts?page=1
I agree with “Tell It Right” in Post #40.
From Search Assist:
Key Supreme Court Cases
Helvering v. Davis (1937)
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, affirming Congress’s power to tax for the general welfare. This case established that the government could use tax revenues to fund social programs.
Flemming v. Nestor (1960)
This ruling clarified that Social Security benefits are not contractual rights. The Court determined that Congress retains the authority to amend benefits, meaning funds can be redirected or adjusted without violating due process.
Implications of the Rulings
The rulings confirm that the government can allocate Social Security funds to the general budget, as long as it adheres to constitutional guidelines.
The trust fund is often viewed as a political construct rather than a true financial asset, as it primarily consists of IOUs from the Treasury rather than actual cash reserves.
These decisions underscore the flexibility Congress has in managing Social Security funds, impacting how benefits are funded and distributed.
Not just that, but the fertility rate declined bigly. Basically the left created the SS Ponzi scheme where the math depended on the then high fertility rate to create new "investors" (younger workers) to keep making payouts (SS checks) that were higher than the older workers put in themselves (especially the first generation of SS recipients). But after the left created the Ponzi scheme, the left heavily promoted for western societies to lower their birth rates to save us all from the overpopulation armageddon. So now that the birth rate in the U.S. is 2.1, the SS Ponzi scheme doesn't have a chance of money paid into SS keeping up with the obligation to SS recipients.
Correct. The federal notes on deposit with the SSA do not represent investments or actual wealth that can be sold for cash to make Social Security payments to beneficiaries. The federal notes are nothing more than a tacit pledge to borrow or pay taxes to reimburse the SSA.
Tariffs will make SS solvent forever!
I had to laugh when my wife informed me we’d be getting a 2.3% COLA for our Social Security. I believe my response was: “Oh boy, more money that doesn’t really exist, and we can’t afford anyway!” My theory is that COVID, and their subsequent poisonous vaccines, are designed to kill of the elderly and sick (”useless eaters”). We’re all living too long,so this is how we begin to relieve the strain on things like SS. More as yet unnamed (undeveloped?) pandemics to follow. Keep tuned to WCDC and WWHO for regular updates, and keep getting those boosters!
There is no surplus to eat into. For the past five years there has been a financial shortfall in Social Security of approximately $200 billion. The government Social Security website tells us that this has been covered with interest that was earned on the $2.7 trillion of U.S. Treasury Notes that represent spent money. I call BS on that. The federal government is almost $38 trillion in debt and running an annual budget deficit of $1.85 trillion. The interest earned on the $2.7 trillion of treasury notes is nothing but a ledger entry. Federal deficit spending has covered the financial shortfall.
Confiscating more money to put at the front of the Social Security pyramid scheme solves no problem.
The life expectancy was lower because of childhood diseases that were killing children at a very young age. There young age was factored in to reach the average age of death.
See post 27.
Tariffs are not confiscation. Don’t buy, don’t pay.
Correct, tariffs are not confiscation. To confiscate the tariff revenue to go into Social Security would be. What problem would that solve?
It would solve solvency. Duh
You sound like a raving Leftist.
Mr. Duh, moving more money to Social Security would do nothing to eliminate the cause of the insolvency. The cause of the insolvency is that none of the Social Security contributions were ever put into any real, actual wealth creating investments. The contributions were simply spent. Putting more money into the Social Security pyramid scheme solves no problem. Participants in the program should be permitted to put a portion of their contributions into real wealth creating investments and own their individual Social Security accounts. Meanwhile, the federal government has demonstrated that they are willing to use federal deficit spending to make up the financial shortfall.
This post is about economic reality. All of your past Social Security contributions have been spent and are gone. No matter what you want. You have no money in the Social Security system.
My Knick name is Karl.
If the SS fund runs a surplus it is solvent. I believe that even if SS was solvent you’d still be against it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.