Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... time-ever/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not worried because the Dims will just keep creating funny money for us.

Time to open up the social security lock box

Of course this is why talk of past surpluses and deficits have been ridiculous. Social Security receipts over disbursements made surpluses look larger and deficits look smaller. From an accrual accounting standpoint social security hasn't been solvent for more than 4 decades, if not longer. Wonderful cash basis accounting by the government might make it look so, but it has been running in the red for years. Last I heard was the liabilities exceed assets (basically zero) by $50T.

OL FU wrote:Time to open up the social security lock box

Of course this is why talk of past surpluses and deficits have been ridiculous. Social Security receipts over disbursements made surpluses look larger and deficits look smaller. From an accrual accounting standpoint social security hasn't been solvent for more than 4 decades, if not longer. Wonderful cash basis accounting by the government might make it look so, but it has been running in the red for years. Last I heard was the liabilities exceed assets (basically zero) by $50T.

GWB was brilliant on this one. He knew the Dems would jeer and laugh when he addressed Congress over this issue. In a few years, someone is going to have to admit the political genius of that whole thing.

OL FU wrote:Time to open up the social security lock box

Of course this is why talk of past surpluses and deficits have been ridiculous. Social Security receipts over disbursements made surpluses look larger and deficits look smaller. From an accrual accounting standpoint social security hasn't been solvent for more than 4 decades, if not longer. Wonderful cash basis accounting by the government might make it look so, but it has been running in the red for years. Last I heard was the liabilities exceed assets (basically zero) by $50T.

Total liabilities assumes no one in the US is working b/c they're either a. retired or b. disabled. Also, since Social Security is a separate tax from your regular income taxes, the surplus money from my understanding is that it is supposed to be invested in treasury bonds, which currently are not yielding much.

ATrain wrote:

OL FU wrote:Time to open up the social security lock box

Of course this is why talk of past surpluses and deficits have been ridiculous. Social Security receipts over disbursements made surpluses look larger and deficits look smaller. From an accrual accounting standpoint social security hasn't been solvent for more than 4 decades, if not longer. Wonderful cash basis accounting by the government might make it look so, but it has been running in the red for years. Last I heard was the liabilities exceed assets (basically zero) by $50T.

Total liabilities assumes no one in the US is working b/c they're either a. retired or b. disabled. Also, since Social Security is a separate tax from your regular income taxes, the surplus money from my understanding is that it is supposed to be invested in treasury bonds, which currently are not yielding much.

Not really, Theoretically the money should be invested in TBills but practically it was simply considered an inflow of revenue in the current year budget.

You may know more about this than me, but I believe accrual accounting would require a matching of expenses and revenues. Which means that you would have to present value expected inflows and outflows taking into consideration earnings on any surpluses. That is not by a long shot the assumption that liabilities are only from the currently retired.

I am working. I am not retired. Yet I would be considered in that calculation and since the balance in the social security trust fund is presently 0, you would take my and my employers expected future contributions into consideration along with my expected payout over the typical life expectancy. Right now, Social security is in the hole on that one calculation by around $150,000.

Now don't worry too much, I probably won't make it to the age of 77 But others will make a hell of a lot longer than that.

I went back and redid my calculation and the government is only $130,000 in the hole with respect to me. Multiple that by the 80,000,000 baby boomers and that is in excess of $10T in deficits. Take into consideration that most of the boomers were born before me and therefore will retire earlier than me and that probably jacks the number up another $2 to 4 trillion. Take into consideration that none of the boomers have hit the age of 66 yet and then consider the 40M people who have already retired and the number doubles or triples. $50T in the hold is probably pretty darn close. And yes it is a real number of expected receipts versus expected payouts.

Not really, Theoretically the money should be invested in TBills but practically it was simply considered an inflow of revenue in the current year budget.

I'm too low on the ladder to know anything other than the company line about that

ATrain wrote:

Not really, Theoretically the money should be invested in TBills but practically it was simply considered an inflow of revenue in the current year budget.

I'm too low on the ladder to know anything other than the company line about that

We all know what invested in Tbills means. Tbills are what is used to fund the national debt. So what's the difference. It is either a revenue line or cash used to fund the debt. In other words, both are really the same thing, right? If the government is paying social security interest then that just increases the national debt.

In business accounting, since these are simply book entries from the same entity, they would eliminate each other. I can't tell you how fund accounting works other than it is worthless on a cash basis.

OL FU wrote:

ATrain wrote:
I'm too low on the ladder to know anything other than the company line about that

We all know what invested in Tbills means. Tbills are what is used to fund the national debt. So what's the difference. It is either a revenue line or cash used to fund the debt. In other words, both are really the same thing, right? If the government is paying social security interest then that just increases the national debt.

In business accounting, since these are simply book entries from the same entity, they would eliminate each other. I can't tell you how fund accounting works other than it is worthless on a cash basis.

Yeah, I don't handle the accounting side of things. I just work on medical eligibility for disability benefits.

ATrain wrote:

OL FU wrote:

We all know what invested in Tbills means. Tbills are what is used to fund the national debt. So what's the difference. It is either a revenue line or cash used to fund the debt. In other words, both are really the same thing, right? If the government is paying social security interest then that just increases the national debt.

In business accounting, since these are simply book entries from the same entity, they would eliminate each other. I can't tell you how fund accounting works other than it is worthless on a cash basis.

Yeah, I don't handle the accounting side of things. I just work on medical eligibility for disability benefits.

My back has been bothering lately. Where are you located

Raise the payroll tax cap on rich liberals who fought sensible investment of SS money yet don't seem to think T-bonds are good enough for any of their mass fortunes.

Moveon.org sent me an email saying this is all a lie.
Good news...you young folks can stop worrying now.


----------

Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.

Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?

Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.
So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?

Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths?id=22141- ... WV8uhx&t=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

OL FU wrote:

ATrain wrote:
Yeah, I don't handle the accounting side of things. I just work on medical eligibility for disability benefits.

My back has been bothering lately. Where are you located

I work for the Roanoke VA DDS.

Bronco wrote:Moveon.org sent me an email saying this is all a lie.
Good news...you young folks can stop worrying now.


----------

Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.

Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?

Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.
So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?

Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths?id=22141- ... WV8uhx&t=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

I feel better

Doggone selfish early-retiring Baby Boomers!

Bronco wrote:Moveon.org sent me an email saying this is all a lie.
Good news...you young folks can stop worrying now.

From the link...

MoveOn wrote:Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

The f***? That doesn't change the fact that the federal government still must make up every dollar that the income from the payroll tax doesn't bring in. And the fact that the deficit between the payroll tax income and SS expenses are growing much faster than anticipated.

If t-bonds are so great and stocks and commodities are so bad for SS, why doesn't Soros put all of his fortune in T-bonds? I'll answer that: because he's a typical POS ultra-rich liberal elitist.