The Sad State of the Modern GOP

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Pckfn23 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:35 pm

Willink wrote: you expect to have your policy honored and the insurance company to fulfill its contractual obligations.

As you do with Social Security. That it can change both applies to your automobile insurance and social security. Do you know what the actual name of Social Security is, the act that passed it into law?

The fact that it was argued to not be insurance only highlights the politic climate of the time, but does not change what it fundamentally is. Same as the Obamacare fine, which was reclassified as a tax. It is still a fine.
Last edited by Pckfn23 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 40521
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:38 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:
There is money in the SSTF, currently invested in marketable securities to earn the interest you claim doesn't exist.
at the end the money existing in these investments was north of $2.7 Trillion dollars. Highlights on pages 10 here:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2013/tr2013.pdf



"Marketable securities" are Treasury-issued debt instruments. It's literally just an IOU for future tax exactions. The "raiding" of SS is when the govt lends itself intragovernment debt; e.g., SS ran an 180 billion surplus in 2008, this money was lent to other branches of government and accounted for 180 billion in spending in other fields. In return, the treasury issued the SS administration 180 billion in bonds in marketable securities. This is "raiding" in the sense its taking actual cash surpluses and trading them for the promise of future taxes (bonds).

The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected.
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:43 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:
Willink wrote: you expect to have your policy honored and the insurance company to fulfill its contractual obligations.

As you do with Social Security. That it can change both applies to your automobile insurance and social security. Do you know what the actual name of Social Security is, that act that passed it into law?


SS is not a contract. As I posted like two posts ago, the Fed govt claims it owes you no contractual obligations. I do know what OASDI is, and have, in the previous page, demonstrated how it is devoid of insurance language. Any cursory reading of the legal history behind it would show exactly why that is (e.g., the belief by even its own authors, like Wisconny economist Edwin E. Witte that the Federal government didn't have the power to set up compulsory insurance programs).
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Pckfn23 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:46 pm

Willink wrote:
Pckfn23 wrote:
There is money in the SSTF, currently invested in marketable securities to earn the interest you claim doesn't exist.
at the end the money existing in these investments was north of $2.7 Trillion dollars. Highlights on pages 10 here:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2013/tr2013.pdf



"Marketable securities" are Treasury-issued debt instruments. It's literally just an IOU for future tax exactions. The "raiding" of SS is when the govt lends itself intragovernment debt; e.g., SS ran an 180 billion surplus in 2008, this money was lent to other branches of government and accounted for 180 billion in spending in other fields. In return, the treasury issued the SS administration 180 billion in bonds in marketable securities. This is "raiding" in the sense its taking actual cash surpluses and trading them for the promise of future taxes (bonds).

The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected.


And since it is backed by the credit rating of the United States Federal Government it makes it one of the most secure investments in the world. Thus, not raid, it has and is paid back. Raided as was referenced here is that the money was taken and not paid back, which is untrue.
Image
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 40521
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Pckfn23 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:55 pm

Willink wrote:
Pckfn23 wrote:
Willink wrote: you expect to have your policy honored and the insurance company to fulfill its contractual obligations.

As you do with Social Security. That it can change both applies to your automobile insurance and social security. Do you know what the actual name of Social Security is, that act that passed it into law?


SS is not a contract. As I posted like two posts ago, the Fed govt claims it owes you no contractual obligations. I do know what OASDI is, and have, in the previous page, demonstrated how it is devoid of insurance language. Any cursory reading of the legal history behind it would show exactly why that is (e.g., the belief by even its own authors, like Wisconny economist Edwin E. Witte that the Federal government didn't have the power to set up compulsory insurance programs).



It is a contract in the sense that any contract can be changed and you are only cherry picking a certain small part:

Flemming vs. Nestor, a 1960 case about a Bulgarian immigrant named Ephram Nestor who was deported in 1956 for having been a member of the Communist Party between 1933 and 1939. Nestor was not a citizen but had lived in the United States since 1913.

Nestor retired in 1955 after paying into the Social Security fund for 19 years, since the program was created in 1936. When he was deported, his benefits were terminated under amended provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935.

Nestor sued the federal government, claiming the benefits constituted a contract and that he deserved his payments after so many years of contributing to the system. (The other party in the case was Arthur S. Flemming, the secretary of health, education and welfare during Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency.)

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no contractual obligation for the government to pay out Social Security benefits to Nestor.

The ruling meant payments into the Social Security system could not be considered a person’s property rights if that person violated a rule set forth by Congress, UCLA law professor Katherine Stone told PolitiFact Florida.

In Nestor's case, Congress made rules against belonging to the Communist Party, though it's worth pointing out the law didn't exist when Nestor actually was in the party. Still, the court said the after-the-fact prohibition was valid.

"People who are denied (benefits) can’t say their property was taken from them, unless the change is arbitrary or lacks rational reasoning," Stone said, noting the denial couldn’t be punitive or violate a person’s right to due process.

What could be considered unreasonable? "Just ending the program suddenly could be an irrational measure, " Stone suggested. "Moving the money into tax cuts for the rich could, too."

Changing or suspending the program because of budget constraints, though, would likely pass muster with the courts.


http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... anteed-ac/

Just like my insurance company can reasonably change my policies. Health insurance companies used to do this ALL THE TIME.

Your demonstration didn't demonstrate anything regarding the reality that Social Security is social insurance and someone's belief doesn't make reality any less real.
Image
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 40521
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby GreenDay » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:29 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:at the end the money existing in these investments was north of $2.7 Trillion dollars. Highlights on pages 10 here.


where is that cash?
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby GreenDay » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:30 pm

Pckfn23 wrote: Who raided the social security trust fund? How much did they take? .


The government. Everything. Where is the invested income?
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby GreenDay » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:35 pm

Total expenditures in 2012 were $786 billion. Total income was $840 billion, which consisted of $731 billion in non-interest income and $109 bil- lion in interest earnings. Asset reserves held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew from $2,678 billion at the beginning of the year to $2,732 bil- lion at the end of the year.


731 billion from one group of payers, transferred to another. One interest mechanism produces 109 billion. Holdings of 2.7 trillion (in essentially worthless government bonds, that cannot be cashed in without destroying the market) in one location with an outstanding debt elsewhere of 18.5 trillion. This is exactly the way Bernie Madoff operated. Take money from some to appease the loudest people. Show some books showing profits and holdings, but obscure/ignore the overall debt. A Ponzi scheme.
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby GreenDay » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:39 pm

Willink wrote:
Pckfn23 wrote:
There is money in the SSTF, currently invested in marketable securities to earn the interest you claim doesn't exist.
at the end the money existing in these investments was north of $2.7 Trillion dollars. Highlights on pages 10 here:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2013/tr2013.pdf



"Marketable securities" are Treasury-issued debt instruments. It's literally just an IOU for future tax exactions. The "raiding" of SS is when the govt lends itself intragovernment debt; e.g., SS ran an 180 billion surplus in 2008, this money was lent to other branches of government and accounted for 180 billion in spending in other fields. In return, the treasury issued the SS administration 180 billion in bonds in marketable securities. This is "raiding" in the sense its taking actual cash surpluses and trading them for the promise of future taxes (bonds).

The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected.


we do this in fund accounting all the time - amount owed to a particular fund. The Fund amount looks great (2.7 trillion here, 100 billion there). But on the other side of the building, we spent 18 trillion, so there is no cash available to pay back to these (in reality) depleted funds. Owed to. With no ability to repay. In the public sector (regulated by the government) this is called fraud and people - like Bernie Madoff - go to jail for it. In the government Dems and many Repubs get re-elected for it, or retire with a cash cow (sometimes in their freezer!).
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby GreenDay » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:13 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:
And since it is backed by the credit rating of the United States Federal Government it makes it one of the most secure investments in the world. Thus, not raid, it has and is paid back. Raided as was referenced here is that the money was taken and not paid back, which is untrue.


I know you are relying on the full faith and credit, but that's not without it's risks - and it's expenses. Money owed to the fund has to be collected and it won't be done for the same cost. Either you have to 'print' money (devalue currency) or borrow it. That trust fund money becomes far more expensive to re-aquire. There are consequences to being a debtor nation, just as there are for individuals who operate this way. The danger comes when other nations decide to stop lending and form their own currency groups. If certain nations and commodities go off the dollar, good luck paying that back. But of course, there's always the option of war - if you can get our enemies to lend us money for the equipment.
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:55 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:And since it is backed by the credit rating of the United States Federal Government it makes it one of the most secure investments in the world. Thus, not raid, it has and is paid back. Raided as was referenced here is that the money was taken and not paid back, which is untrue.


It's still just debt. Bonds are not money, so, unless you conflate the two, money was not "paid back in". You have to also keep in mind debt securities on their own when created crowd out market liquidity, so they have a further negative effect solely by being issued. Again, why they are IOUS, not actually money.

T-bills aren't some magical "investment" created out of thin air for economic good. They are a liability by the Treasury.
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:02 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:
Just like my insurance company can reasonably change my policies. Health insurance companies used to do this ALL THE TIME.


But I thought you had a right to SS returns???

Pckfn23 wrote:If something is paid for, then does someone not have the right to what they paid for?"


Are they insurance, or are they earned benefits?


Your demonstration didn't demonstrate anything regarding the reality that Social Security is social insurance and someone's belief doesn't make reality any less real.


So the government lied in two Supreme Court cases?
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:10 pm

Waldo wrote:To go all Wally on you..... if you wish to scrap it, you might as well replace it with a program that sentences everyone to swift death (firing squad?) that has zero money in the bank and no ability to work.



Beside the fact this a false dilemma that shifts the moral burden from someone making a positive claim, why is compulsory theft to finance protection against elderly destitution okay?
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby GreenDay » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:16 pm

Willink wrote:
Waldo wrote:To go all Wally on you..... if you wish to scrap it, you might as well replace it with a program that sentences everyone to swift death (firing squad?) that has zero money in the bank and no ability to work.



Beside the fact this a false dilemma that shifts the moral burden from someone making a positive claim, why is compulsory theft to finance protection against elderly destitution okay?


It's probably not OK - in a purely animalistic view of life.
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:26 pm

Drank quite a bit @ happy hour today, thought I'd add that in spite of the terse language of past few pages let me say that despite my disagreement with Waldo and Pckfn they are still much preferable to anyone who roots for Minnesota sports. I don't take any of this personally and I know political arguments can prove very infuriating for people. I'll gladly drink with either of you. :banana
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest