Here's a soft lie that must be debunked before it gets off the ground!

[TrollBuster9090]

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

The idea that we can solve part of our national debt problem by simply WRITING OFF the money we borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund.

Watch Grandpa Simpson get testy at the 2:20 minute mark when this interviewer points out that the Social Security Trust Fund has a 2 Trillion dollar SURPLUS!

Simpson asserts "There is no surplus, that's just a bunch-a IOUs in there! It's just a bunch-a IOUs" And then asserts that if the government ever calls in those IOUs, it would be the equivalent of getting "a double whammy from your own government."

Of course, I'd like to point out to him that all that's in a BANK is "a bunch-a IOUs" and everybody seems to take THOSE types of IOUs seriously.

And it begs the question: Why are politicians specifically trying to float the idea that the IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund DO NOT have to be paid back??? Why should we not take THOSE IOUs as seriously as we take the OTHER IOUs we owe?

Very simple! Because they're trying to soften the idea in the public mind that we can pay off part of our National Debt BY 'looting the trust fund surplus.'


The Social Security Trust Fund HAS NOT been looted....THEY ARE ATTEMPTING to loot it RIGHT NOW.

Don't fall for the idea that it's already been looted and there is nothing you can do about it. It has not been looted UNTIL they establish the idea that the money borrowed may not have to be paid back. If you want to stop the looting...NOW would be the time.


I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but if the Plutocrats and the GOP, who've wanted to destroy Social Security since it's inception, but knew they'd suffer for it politically if they just did it, wanted to destroy it stealthfully, THIS is how they could do it:

1. Borrow the money that's in the Government TRUST FUND.
2. Run up a scary amount of debt elsewhere.
3. Then claim that one of they ways to get out of that debt would be to simply WRITE OFF the portion of the National Debt that we owe to OURSELVES (or to our senior citizens).


THIS IS THE IDEA WE HAVE TO PREVENT FROM TAKING ROOT!
THE MONEY WE OWE OURSELVES (that we borrowed from the SS TRUST FUND) MUST BE PAID BACK. PERIOD. Why the hell should the money we borrowed from regular bond holders be taken more seriously than the money we borrowed from our own senior citizens???

This is what happens when you put EDMUND BLACKADDER in charge of government.

Bud Abbot explains the rational for not having to repay those "IOUs" in the Trust Fund as follows:

But I like what REAGAN says, better.

[zeemike]

1. What a jerk.

He totally tried to intimidate the reporter.
And then just told one bold face lie after the other....these assholes need to go.

[former_con]

2. The lesser people... you know

us 99 percent...

[TrollBuster9090]

9. Simpson is a master of rhetoric appealing to the young and the poor, while simultaneously screwing

them. Every time you see him on TV, he's always pushing the idea that raising the retirement age is a way to prevent the youth of today from having to pay for the old coots (like him) who don't need it. Also a way of saving the poor or middle class who are currently paying into the trust fund from having to pay for the people currently entering retirement. Thus, he gets a big boost on the emotional side from the young and the poor. (Something that normally the Llew Rockwell Libertarian propagandists normally do.)

Meanwhile he completely forgets to mention that the people who are about to retire have been paying an EXTRA AMOUNT into the trust fund SINCE 1983 in order to BUILD UP this surplus so that the baby boomer bulge will be taken care of. He also forgets to mention that all of those 20 year olds who think they'll 'live fast and die young' might be in for a rude dissapointment when they reach the age of 65 and are told they won't be able to retire for another ten years. "Back down into the coal mine for YOU, Gramps."

This has got to be the crime of the century! The problem of the Baby Boomers retiring en masse WAS SOLVED, and these a-holes are now proposing to UN-SOLVE it.

[BlueNoteSpecial]

40. Overconfident, bragging thieves have earned...

...custom striped uniforms for their public "service".

[TrollBuster9090]

13. Frankly, I lost track of how many lies he told there.

1. 'They didn't know there was gonna be a baby boom in 1983 '(when they FIXED the Baby Boom problem by upping the Payroll Tax to PAY for the Baby Boom problem).
2. That 'they didn't know the life expectancy was gonna be longer than 65 years' when this was well established by 1983, or my personal favorite,
3. 'There is no surplus in there, it's just a bunch-a IUOs' Um, yes, but isn't this like BORROWING money against my house, and then saying I don't have to PAY BACK the money I borrowed on my house because it's ...you know...MY HOUSE.

I think Simpson explained why those IOUs don't have to be repaid as follows:

[Plucketeer]

32. Did I hear wrong???

Simpson explains that the life expectancy was 57 when SS was set up - THAT'S why the set the age of retirement at SIXTY-FIVE - cause they figured no one would ever make it to 65 in the future! So, if I may use this as an example...... I buy a new car and decide to purchase an exdtended warranty on it.... But this warranty I'm gonna pay on every month - it does nada for me UNLESS my car lasts thru 30 years of regular use. Now, I KNOW - and the DEALER KNOWS - that cars are lucky to make it out to 20 years of age. Still, as my car ages, I'm dutifully paying my monthly installment on the warranty I hope to make use of one day. The premium payments add up to a tidy sum after a few years - a sum that I could've USED to keep my car maintained so it would last longer. But I steele myself that I'm doing the right thing for my future. It's a capable vehicle and if I never have to buy a new one, that warranty that only kicks in when the car hits 30 - that warranty's gonna be my salvation!

Well, in a miracle of motoring, my stalwart old dobbin makes it to age 30. It's still serving me, but boy.... would a good tune-up and some fresh tires be nice! And I tell the aging dealer that as I stand there with my extended warranty plan in my hand.
"Welllllllllll......" the owner of Simpson Motors drawls "that warranty's not worth much these days. See, foreign competitors came into the market with better quality - longer lasting cars. OUR car industry had to match their quality and build cars that had a real chance at seeing 30 years of age. The warranties we sell nowdays are for cars that are lucky enough to persevere through 40 years of use - so now HOW would it be fair to these new warranty suckers if we paid folks like YOU when your car made it to thirty? Don't be distraught though. Those premiums you paid? Look at the fine improvements they've made possible for the dealership! Think of the jobs created thanks to the extra CPAs and facilities maintenance folks your premiums required to keep track of.
I'll tell ya what - how's bout we give you a tank of gas and a new set of wiper blades and call it even? Would that make ya feel better??? C'mon, you're not gonna be able to keep drivin' much longer anyways - wiper blades and gas - how can you beat that? For FREE, no less!"

[former_con]

35. Excellent analogy... you heard it right...

[bitchkitty]

43. May I post your analogy elsewhere? n/t

[Plucketeer]

44. Sure thing!

[customerserviceguy]

3. So

How's it going to be redeemed?

There are only three ways:

1) Federal budget surpluses where the amount of taxes taken in exceed money spent. In other words, raising taxes on the rich that already own enough of Congress that they're willing to drive to the point of recession to get what they want.

2) Flooding the market with 2-3 trillion dollars of new, fully negotiable securities. In other words, even more borrowing from investors overseas or domestically, who are already being offered T-bills and notes on to finance a budget that is not (and may never be) balanced as contemplated by point #1.

3) Simply issuing checks with no "real" money to back them up. In other words, simply inflating the currency, and heading down the path of Zimbabwe.

Do you see any other ways to get those IOU's (Bernie Sanders called them that, too) redeemed? And then, how are 2-3 trillion dollars going to cover the 15 trillion obligation of Social Security?

[TrollBuster9090]

8. Presumably the same way ANY of our debt obligations will be redeemed.

Either through one or a combination of the methods on your list, OR another option.

My point was that the money we borrowed from our Senior Citizens' pension fund shouldn't be treated any differently than any of the money we borrowed from any other source. So, whatever method you or anybody else proposes to pay off the 14 trillion we owe to regular bond holders should ALSO apply to the 2 trillion we owe to the Social Security Trust Fund.

But if you're asking for my personal opinion, i'd say:

50% from your OPTION 1 (asking the wealthy to pay more)
10% from your OPTION 3 (inflating the currency, which is not always a bad thing, depending how it's done. We are in ABSOLUTELY NO DANGER of hyperinflation, so please don't give credence to any right-wing talking points about Weimar Republican Germany or Zimbabwe.)
and
40% through encouraging economic growth by a) re-writing the tax code eliminating loopholes and outsourcing incentives, and encouraging small business expansion, b) government funded energy development, particularly geothermal...leading eventually to a new 'cheap energy' economic boom, and c) re-organizing government involvement in the economy to favor policies with the highest multiplier effect. ie-TAX CUTS have a very low multiplier effect, while govt. programs like FOOD STAMPS actually have a VERY HIGH multiplier effect. But the political rhetoric is backwards, where politicians get the most bang for their buck by pushing for tax cuts over food stamps; when in fact economic growth policy prescribes exactly the reverse. We need a concerted effort to promote REAL ECONOMICS in our political rhetoric. If that means promoting the idea of putting more REAL ECONOMISTS on TeeVee as 'pundits,' so be it.

Did you seen MEDIA MATTERS' piece on this? The networks have spent MONTHS blathering about 'The Economy' without asking ONE SINGLE F-ING ECONOMIST for their opinion! If we could somehow encourage a REAL debate/discussion on REAL economics, rather than this fake, political economics, we definitely wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. Because every REAL economist knows that AUSTERITY is exactly the OPPOSITE of what we need to do to dig the economy out of its current rut.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/13/economists-and-economics-absent-from-media-cove/191837

[Honeycombe8]

4. I like many things about Simpson, but he has this thing about Social Security,

and he's flat wrong about the program. It's been a hugely successful program.

I think you're right....I wondered this before, actually, that part of why Repubs are being so insistent on SS RIGHT NOW, is that they want part of that debt written off, which means our elderly and most vulnerable will be paying off that part of the debt. NO! I say NO!

[h2ebits]

5. Thanks for expressing this so clearly.

I've been trying to say the exact same thing for a while but my explanation has not been as clear as yours.

And when they were talking about defaulting on the debt a couple of years ago, it was not the Chinese owned bonds that they were talking about even though they let everyone think that it was just that. In fact, they were talking about looting the Social Security Trust Fund and robbing us completely blind.

[TrollBuster9090]

19. Thank you! There's an equally clear solution. Remove the payroll tax cap.

At present, everybody pays 6% (including those 47% 'freeloaders' that Mitt was telling the billionaire's club about) UP TO an income of $106 000, above which the amount you pay is CAPPED at what you'd pay at $106K

So...some poor schmuck who earns $12 000 a year working minimum pays 6% of their income in payroll tax
Some lucky schmuck who earns $100 000 a year pays 6% of their income in payroll tax
and
Some EXTREMELY lucky schmuck who earns $100 000 000 a year pays the cap of $6000 payroll tax, which translates to

(6000/100 000 000 X 100%= 0.006%), less than one tenth of one percent of his/her income in payroll tax.

1. Where I come from, we call a tax rate that SHRINKS as a proportion of income the more you make a "REGRESSIVE tax."

2. The rational for doing this was that somebody who makes $100 000 000 could probably afford a much better retirement pension than the piffling $1000 or so a month that S.S. pays...but I'd say that that's not the point. The point of SS is to provide the minimum amount needed to live on retirement. The fact that you earn $100 000 000 today does not mean you won't go broke tomorrow, and if you do, you'll still have the $1000 per month, even if you now have ZERO income and assets.

Remove the Payroll Tax Cap, and we'll never again have to have this ridiculous conversation about 'solvency' of the Trust Fund.

[hay rick]

6. Alan Simpson's version of the 47%. Lesser people.

Excellent summary of the fiscal cliff/Social Security funding scam in your post:

1. Borrow the money that's in it.
2. Run up a scary amount of debt elsewhere.
3. Then claim that one of they ways to get out of that debt would be to simply WRITE OFF the portion of the National Debt that we owe to OURSELVES (or to our senior citizens).

The real Social Security funding issue is cash flow. Having already spent the trust fund on tax cuts for the rich and unbudgeted wars (also known as "highways" according to Simpson), the powers that be find that sustaining current programs and paying promised benefits will require new borrowing or higher taxes. Screwing poor and middle class people is so much easier and better.

[TrollBuster9090]

20. In fact, we know what the attitude of the elites is.

Q: Why should we treat the money we owe to the Social Security Trust Fund differently than the money we owe to any other bond holder?

A1: Because WE CAN. and

A2: Because Senior Citizens have diminishing political clout, and when there's not enough food to go around, there is less political resistance to taking what remains away from the dogs that are already starving. In a nutshell...loot the SS trust fund because NOBODY WILL NOTICE. The Senior Citizens don't currently have the same political clout the did 30 years ago, when there were a lot more of them. And if you force a million or so retirees to eat cat food instead of hamburger, it's not going to have the same political ramifications. It's not going to cause inflation or raised interest rates. Not going to cause the Chinese to rip up trade agreements, or the Japanese to ban U.S. car imports. Not going to cause plutocrats in Dubai to move their bond portfolio from the U.S. treasury to the European Union...

Just do this and A) only a few people will suffer, and B) the rest won't notice. Politics is not about what's happening, it's about what's noticed.

[jtuck004]

7. Rick's Burgers, in Spokane, hasa Whammy, a Double Whammy, and a Triple Whammy.

There are so many people from Montana through Spokane that I thought the Senator-Who-Sometimes-Reminds-Me-Of-John-Wayne-Gacy might have been talking about those...

Because then a "Double Whammy" would simply mean getting what you were promised and already paid for.

Such as SS.


Otherwise he's just talking as a common thief.

[TrollBuster9090]

11. Hah! Good point.

The definition of a double whammy needs to be changed.

A double whammy is when you pay into a retirement fund your whole life, and then the government borrows it, and then says they don't have to pay it back.


SEEN IT, PINCHED IT, SPENT IT...

[Samantha]

10. The largest holder of U.S. debt is its citizens

This thread just addresses one part of the problem. The U.S. Government has also borrowed against other items such as Federal Government employees' pensions. I do believe that is why we hear "government workers make too much money." I do not think the government has the resources to pay that money back either.

I have to wonder about the surplus the U.S. Post Office has built up over the years, but I cannot find specifically how much that is and where it supposedly is. I believe it might be held alongside government pensions in a separate pocket. I would be amazed if borrowing against the health care and pension funds stored up by the USPO for the next 75 years (outrageous, right?) has NOT happened. I believe a large part of that money has been borrowed as well and thus we hear shut the post office down.

Also we have teachers, police and firefighters pension funds. Some states have failed to make their payments annually and also have made bad investments. So it is not surprising once again we hear teachers make too much money and firefighters and police do not get the annual raises they should be getting.

All of these pieces I believe point to a much larger picture, a picture of government influential forces are lobbying to default on debt to its citizens.

There are also corporations and monied individuals who have encouraged Uncle Sam to default on debt it owes its citizens. The only problem they see is that it would make it more difficult in the future for the government to borrow money. This is such an outrage that people would even think like this, but they simply say look at much the U.S. deficit would be lowered if Uncle Sam did default.

The only question I have is will the American people allow Uncle Sam to do this. Keep in mind Ben Bernanke himself said openly in a Senate hearing (aired on C-SPAN, I have no link but I heard him say it myself) Social Security can be repealed. My jaw dropped.

Sam

[TrollBuster9090]

30. All very true! It's even MORE clever than Norquist's 'starve the beast' strategy.

Norquist's 'starve the beast' strategy is to let govt. increase in size and expense, while cutting off tax revenues and borrowing the difference, until the whole thing collapses under it's own debt.

This strategy goes a step beyond, and actually allows political cronies to LOOT government BEFORE it collapses, and win both ways, by not only destroying those government agencies you don't like, but PROFITING from them before they go down.

Thomas Frank summed up the racket pretty well in his book "The Wrecking Crew," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wrecking_Crew_(book)), and so it's not surprising that the plutocratic class and those who aspire to that class would try this. What IS surprising is that the civil servants who BELIEVE that government can be an influence for the good would LET them do this without any apparent resistance whatsoever.

Remember Alan Greenspan's testimony about how he was surprised (SHOCKED I tell you!) that the people who run businesses and banks would actually run those businesses into the ground with reckless, short sighted decisions? Well, nobody should be surprised that a trader at Barron's (like Nick Leeson) would be willing to risk bankrupting the company he works for in the quest of a million dollar bonus. The risk of losing your job when the company goes under if your guess wrong is FAR outweighed by the possibility of getting millions in bonuses if you guess right, and nobody should be shocked by that. Nobody should be surprised that the Austrian theory of 'enlightened self interest' doesn't really exist in the REAL world of business. But I'm totally shocked that it also doesn't exist in the civil service!

[Zen Democrat]

12. Those "IOUs" are US Treasuries, the epitome of security.

Unless someone's trying to bring down the American government . . . . .

[TrollBuster9090]

15. Exactly. UNLESS somebody is trying to float the idea that money owed by STATE governments to

the big bad old FEDERAL government doesn't have to be repaid in full, or repaid as fast because....well I don't know...

Pick your favorite reason:

1. The federal gubmint is evil while State Governments are good
2. The federal government can print money, so why don't they just do THAT and get off our backs.
3. If you believed that SHELL GAME about how Capital Gains Tax is lower than income tax 'because the money has already been taxed ONCE at the corporate tax level' you're stupid enough to believe EVERYTHING, so would you believe that people living in those states that borrowed the money are the same people who sent it to Washington in the first place, so when they borrowed it back they shouldn't have to repay it cuz' it's their own money to begin with...or sumpin' like that.
4. Because a lot of State governments that borrowed the money have Balanced Budget Amendments in their constitutions, and the Feds don't, so let the feds get screwed because they can better afford to absorb the loss than the States, who would have to raise taxes to pay back the debt...and we don't like raising taxes

Blah blah blah....

No amount of cognitive dissonance is beyond these people. Cognitive dissonance is the only thing that's in limitless supply in America. If we could run CARS on the stuff, there would be another cheap energy economic boom.

[ErikJ]

14. Then why did RWers mock Gore for the SS Lock-box idea in 2000? nt

[TrollBuster9090]

17. Better yet...why did they elect THE SHRUB when Gore was promising to use Clinton's budget surplus

to fix Social Security, while George Jr. was offering to 'give it back' in the form of tax cuts? The fact that anybody would fall for that kind of political pandering makes me lose faith in Democracy as a form of government.

Oh wait a minute. I guess, technically, the voters DID NOT elect George Bush. The f-ing SUPREME COURT elected him, so I guess we can blame them. (And we should.) Okay, Democracy is still good. Political cronyism is the problem.

[savannah43]

16. Sometimes so-called conspiracy theories are just the truth.

Some thinkers are ahead of the game.

[TrollBuster9090]

18. Well, I'm a bigger fan of Occam's Razor.

Why assume conspiracy when incompetence will due?

I think it was MOSTLY incompetence, but with a few conspirators thrown in to spice things up. I have no doubt that a few people like Grover "drown government in the bathtub" Norquist saw the right wing advantage to letting government borrow from the Social Security trust fund. Sort of like the way an UNDERTAKER would see the advantage in letting children buy cigarettes.

[FiveGoodMen]

38. "Why assume conspiracy when incompetence will do?"

Because conspiracy is far more likely to be true in this case.

The accumulation of wealth is a competitive game. The winners are those who play the game best.

They didn't all fail upward, they won because they were good at what they were doing.

The notion that they'd work together -- however temporarily -- to achieve more of what they want takes no stretch of the imagination at all. It fits Occam quite well.

Whereas, the notion that a bunch of incompetents somehow accumulated all the nation's power and wealth takes some serious explaining.

So... Yes to Occam; no to your conclusion.

[Angry Dragon]

21. If they decide not to honor the Treasuries that SS holds

then they have to dishonor all Treasuries ...... then there would be no debt

[TrollBuster9090]

26. Iceland style! I like it!

But, of course, we all know that Congress would never pass a law saying "f-ck the Bonds, we're not payin'." While half of them would gladly pass a bill saying "f-ck Social Security, we're not payin'"

Republicans: "Alright, that's it. We're not payin'."

Democrats: "Why not?"

Republicans: "Because SOCIAL SECURITY is a f-ing MOOK!"

Heck, who knows. Maybe all that would be necessary is to have another Republican President in the White House who can sign an EXECUTIVE ORDER saying that the Social Security Trust Fund will cease and desist from going after the State Governments that now owe it money.


"Executive Order 143509: Leave The State Government's ALOOOOOne!"
--President Chris Crocker (R), 45th President of the United States

[WhoIsNumberNone]

22. The Social Security trust fund wouldn't be full of IOUs

if the government hadn't spent the last 30 years raiding it to pay for mushrooming defense budgets while cutting taxes on rich people.

[AAO]

23. Simpson is about as bright as Jessica.

Sneering contempt for us "lesser people". What a waste of oxygen.

[happyslug]

24. We are at a point, where the choice is Social Security or defense, and he refuses to cut defense.

Remember we have had a Social Security Surplus for decades, but that is coming to an end. To keep present benefits levels, that pass surplus has to be "paid back" and that means with income taxes OR other sources of revenue (i.e. borrow more money). Thus he is facing a call to raise INCOME TAXES or CUT DEFENSE SPENDING. He does NOT want to do either, thus by calling the Social Security surplus, not a surplus, he does NOT have to pay it back and reserve the money raised for defense (or refuse to raise Income Taxes to pay for defense and to pay back Social Security).

The response should have been, if we do NOT have to honor the US TREASURY BONDS HELD BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, why should we honor ANY US TREASURY BONDS? Right now the interest on the debt is about 10-20% of the budget, by abolishing the debt we "Save" that much money. It is the same logic, the Federal Government can abolish its debts, the Constitution forbids the STATES from abolishing their debts, but the Federal Government can (The US Constitution also forbids the states from abolishing Contracts, but the Federal Government can). Thus Congress can abolish the Social Security Surplus. The problem is, if Congress does that, what prevents Congress from abolishing all the other US Treasury Debts? The answer is NOTHING.

In many ways this is the big fear of investors when it comes to Social Security, if Congress abolish the Social Security held Treasury bonds, the next step is ALL US Treasury bonds. Thus cutting the Trust Treasury bonds can lead investors to abandon US Treasury Bonds, on the grounds the bonds are to risky,

This fear is the only reason Congress has NOT pushed to abolish the trust fund surplus, it is the fear that if the US bonds do NOT sell, then all the US can do is print money OR raise taxes AND cut spending (and I am looking at a 90% defense cut, just like what Russia did when the Soviet Union Collapsed). This is NOT a problem as long as the US can borrow money, but the US can borrow money for it has NEVER abolished its debts, thus investors feel secure with US Treasury bonds.

This is a circle, US can borrow, for it pays its debts. Paying off the debt, permits more borrowing. If the Treasury bonds held by Social Security are abolished, how will that make investors view the rest of the US treasury bonds? This is the problem the Right wing advocate of abolishing the Social Security Surplus do NOT want to address or even hear for it means their plan to abolish the SS Trust funds, undercuts they plan to maintain defense spending.

[sabrina 1]

25. The big Republican Lie, told by a Republican liar and sadly, repeated even here

on a Democratic forum by a few who have swallowed the propaganda.

This is what happens when a Democratic Presidents appoints a Republican who hates SS to a Commission that was meant to talk about something competely unrelated to SS.

Do we not have any Democrats who could have been appointed to that Commission?

This is the kind of bi-partisanship we have now. A Dem appointed Republican who has done nothing but lie about SS and without any correction from the president who appointed him.

[jjewell]

27. The "IOU's" in the Social Security Trust Fund...

are Treasury notes, "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States", just like the T-Bills we sell to
China, the UK, and everyone else in the world we sell to and borrow from. If the US government were to default on
it's Treasury Notes, it would signal and trigger the total economic collapse of the United States...

[TrollBuster9090]

28. Yes, that would certainly be true if the SS Trust fund asked for the money when the Bonds mature,

and the Treasury refuses to pay them. But that's unlikely. What's MORE likely is that some gang of a-holes in Congress, OR in the West Wing of the White House decide to tell the SS Trust fund to tell the Treasury that they don't HAVE to honor the Bonds. That's the beauty of having your hands up the butts of both Punch AND Judy at the puppet show, as the plutocratic class DOES. You simply alter the script so that Judy keeps ASKING to get whacked by the stick.

[hodger]

29. What a clear view

you have of this scam. My thanks for the post indeed. I am going to read it several times over..............sad too.

[TrollBuster9090]

31. Thank you!

[Left Turn Only]

34. Fantastic post

Of course, I will write my representatives even though they never read anything, but is there anything "we the people" can do? Any practical ideas out there?

[Plucketeer]

33. Hows that song go?

"Playin' solitare til dawn - with a deck of fifty-one....."

[Warpy]

36. It's all in t-bills. Republicans default on one single t-bill

and the whole world will divest overnight. This country will have nothing, no way to buy anything offshore, no way to make it here, nothing.

That's how stupid the Republicans talking about defaulting on their debt to American workers are.

[DhhD]

37. The SS Trust Fund could provide a written statement (like a bank statement) of borrowers and

how much they owe. A bank statement gives dates of transactions.

[joetubes]

39. Bonds to China

We don"t owe them either,its just more IOU's

[paleotn]

41. IOUs?

I'm sick and tired of this "IOU" BS. That goes for Alan "cat food" Simpson AND Bernie Sanders. Words mean something, folks. Intentionally using incorrect terminology is the same as lying. They're called US Treasury securities, thank you very damn much, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. They can't be arbitrarily "called in", but like any asset can be sold on the open market or, at maturity, cashed in or rolled over into new securities. Thus, they are not just "IOUs", Simpson, you ass, but financial assets with value the world over.

And no, the US government did not "raid" the "trust fund" for years on end. A simple question, what's the SSA supposed to do with FICA revenue not needed to pay current obligations? Simply park it in some half ass "lock box", akin to stuffing it in a mattress? Uh, no. It's invested in what's considered the safest, income producing securities on the planet. Yes, US treasuries.

Safest? Yes. In fact, we've been using interest rates on T-Bills to approximate the risk free rate of return for generations. If, in some bizarre universe only Alan Simpson could imagine, the Feds default on ANY treasury security EVER, SS funding will be the least of our problems, as the entire global financial system crashes into a mangled heap. Yes, folks, that's a depression to awful to even comprehend. In short, I'm sick, and damn tired of politicians who know better, playing on the financial ignorance and fear of most Americans.

[Quantess]

42. What a creep.