Social(ist) Security Question

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by TheResister, Oct 5, 2016.

  1. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The US government creates money, it neither has the money nor doesn't have money. It would be like you have a magic checkbook where you could write checks and they never bounce. If you had such a checkbook, how much money would you have? If someone offered to pay you in the money that you had previously created, would it have value to you? If yo took that payment, would you have more money? No, of course not. You have a checkbook where you can create all the money you want, you can never have more or less money.

    The only reason you'd need/ want money from anyone is that you realize if you keep writing checks that eventually the amount of money in circulation will rise. If it rises faster than the value of the nation's productivity you will create inflation. So taxing it's about having more money, it's about preventing inflation. Not that you care, but everyone else that uses the money you create does. So if you aren't careful, everyone will get really angry with you.

    There is a TT&L account that SS funds are deposited into, but that is simply for accounting purposes. The government uses those funds as the justification for the purchasing of securities with that money. The idea that the government could tax back money and set it aside, is silly. It would be the equivalent of taking a loan for $10,000 and spending it. Then at some point in the future, you get back the $10,000 and instead of paying back your loan, you deposit it in an account and claim you have $10,000 (ignoring the $10,000 debt). The reality is that you have an asset (the cash) of $10,000 and a liability for -$10,000 (the loan). That equals zero. But wait!! If you act right now, it gets even worse! Instead of the gov repaying the money (the gov created and taxed) back to itself (the gov), the gov takes the $10,000 and purchases securities from itself (the gov), then at some point in the future the gov creates more money to repay the debt and interest the gov created.

    This is a game of political semantics of the highest order. If the government can create the funds to repay the securities and the interest the gov created, why can't the gov just create the money and pay SS recipients and skip the purchase of treasuries? This is just a silly game politicians play with economically illiterate people so that it can pretend that it's being responsible. It's economic stupidity.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  2. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The government isn't constrained fiscally.

    I address this above, but the government doesn't "lend to itself", it purchases securities. If the government were really to through the rediculus steps of depositing money into an account and just let it sit, you realize that inflation would eat away at the value of those dollars. So the dollar you put in when you're 20 will be worth less than 1/2 of that when you retire. Why not take the money it taxes and repay the debt that created the dollars in the first place? I mean, if the debt is something that concerns you.

    Now all you have to do is explain is how inflation set in in Weimar. Oh, and here's a hint, the precipitating event, wasn't the mass creation of money. That came as a result of something else.

    Then you have to tell us what the precipitating event in the US that will lead to hyper-inflation.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  3. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ah, the processes of a liberal indoctrination, no doubt a fine citizen of the United States employing the A is non A metaphysical identity. In that context, of course the government isn't constrained physically.

    I address this above. Otherwise a loan would be a loan. But the main question would be "securities", really? How can you call something from someone that already owes a well know debt of some $20 Trillion that can't be paid not to mention the supposed unfunded liabilities of more than $150 Trillion. I believe we are talking about the lowest class junk bonds, not securities.

    And I believe you are grossly underestimating (again addressed above) the effect of the theft called inflation. Let take a perfectly good dollar from 1913, backed by gold until 1933, that now has the purchasing power of $0.04.

    Debt concerns me, again I address this above.

    If you want to discuss the Weimar Republic, then start a thread on that and not try and hijack this one.

    I'm not your slave and HAVE to do anything. As to manifestation of inflation, it is upon us. As to causation, I would suggest you but look into a mirror.
     
  4. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    43
    There is nothing "liberal" about it. These are just accounting facts.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  5. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Accounting facts, oh please do enlighten me on those jewels. But please stay within the confines of your declarations thus made to this point.
     
  6. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    10,663
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male

    That is nothing more than right wing propaganda so don't buy into that lie.

    As I documented before, Social Security is not socialist but is as American as apple pie - it was first introduced to society by Founding Father Thomas Paine. Criticizing him or his suggestion is treason.
     
  7. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It might help to know the full context of what Herman Cain said that 'TheResister' is basing the OP on.


    Why should we have a problem accepting social programs to be socialist?
    In his pamphlet "Agrarian Justice" what Paine suggested taking into account inflation, as I attempted to put in terms of cost today appears would provide the following costs/payments:
    About $140,000,000,000 each year in a one time payment to those turning 21 years of age to provide them a start in life.
    About $1,104,000,000,000 each year to those age 65 or more.
    Or a total of about $1,244,000,000,000 annual spending currently.
    I think that would work quite easily if government provided no additional spending on aid to individuals between the age of 21 to 65.
    However I'm not certain his funding mechanism would work, taxing land owners once per generation, 10% for close relations and a higher rate for distant relations.
    Perhaps you or another may have access to all the data necessary to produce the figures on that?
    I disagree that criticizing him, or his suggestion is treason, unless you feel that the majority of the posts we see in this forum are acts of treason.
     
  8. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    10,663
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not possible to equate today's numbers with those of yesteryear. I know of few people who would want to retire at age 47 which was the average retirement age in those days (life expectancy, as I understand it, extended to roughly age 55 with few people living beyond that). The point isn't so much the numbers but the principle - the idea of social security. Right wingers like to pretend that this concept is communist in origin. But, as always, the TRUTH is that it began with our Founding Fathers who exerted an influence over socialists and other modern day reformers.
     

Share This Page