Trump is our last hope at stopping the debt

[Jack V Savage]

(Crash course on US Gov't finance incoming)

How SS was *supposed* to work was everyone makes contributions to SS and the money deposited plus the money earned over time would make the program net neutral.

Not really. It was pay-as-you-go for most of its history. Then the gov't made adjustments (generating a surplus to be invested in bonds) to account for demographic changes in 1982. A big portion of our debt (roughly 16%) is to SS.

Good parroting of assorted ridiculous myths in the rest of your post, though. Too much to get into. One big one, FYI, is that when the trust fund runs out (and note that there would be none if you were right), it would revert to being pay-as-you go, but would only be funded at about three quarters.

 

[Malthian]

Not really. It was pay-as-you-go for most of its history. Then the gov't made adjustments (generating a surplus to be invested in bonds) to account for demographic changes in 1982. A big portion of our debt (roughly 16%) is to SS.

Good parroting of assorted ridiculous myths in the rest of your post, though. Too much to get into. One big one, FYI, is that when the trust fund runs out (and note that there would be none if you were right), it would revert to being pay-as-you go, but would only be funded at about three quarters.

Myths? You mean like analysis by David. M. Walker, former US Comptroller of the Government Accounting Office?

http://blog-pfm.imf.org/pfmblog/files/gao08411t_longterm_fiscal_outlook.pdf

Perhaps you'd prefer something more friendly like a youtube video?



Or did you mean poor information sources like internal analysis by the St. Louis Reserve Bank?

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf

If you actually take the time to do the math, look at fiscal obligations and revenues and project them forward with varying rates of projected economic growth and changes in demographics, you will find very quickly that the conclusions are inescapable.

More importantly if you strip out the economic "static" that is introduced in actual government reporting and categorization, you'll find that at best you get extraordinarily optimistic numbers (pipe dreams) being presented both by government and by industry to the public.

It's not much different than most negative scenario's. Try doing some research into the actual rate of water depletion in the South West and compare that to what is actual put forward to the public.

In finance circles outside of the US (and some inside) it's pretty much acknowledged that the US is screwed. Just as it was predicted as far back as 2006 that there would be at least a partial derivative meltdown, and that the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) were headed for big trouble.

Did any of this make the mainstream press? Or course not. Why would major money groups want to make advantageous information commonly known? However when you look at these kinds of areas, you rapidly realize that the cold math of finance and economics are inescapable. You might as well pretend that gravity doesn't exist.

However, keep on cruising if it makes you happy. There's nothing like peace of mind.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Myths? You mean like analysis by David. M. Walker, former US Comptroller of the Government Accounting Office?

Myths like the idiocy you posted.

If you actually take the time to do the math, look at fiscal obligations and revenues and project them forward with varying rates of projected economic growth and changes in demographics, you will find very quickly that the conclusions are inescapable.

Indeed. If you actually do that work, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that SS is in fine shape in the long term. The projected 75-year shortfall is just 1% of GDP over that whole period, meaning that it's well within the margin of error and that any needed adjustment--either in spending or revenue would be very small.

More importantly if you strip out the economic "static" that is introduced in actual government reporting and categorization, you'll find that at best you get extraordinarily optimistic numbers (pipe dreams) being presented both by government and by industry to the public.

Except that lately we've seen numbers that have been far better than projected, and historically, projections have been about equally likely to miss in either direction.

Did any of this make the mainstream press? Or course not. Why would major money groups want to make advantageous information commonly known? However when you look at these kinds of areas, you rapidly realize that the cold math of finance and economics are inescapable. You might as well pretend that gravity doesn't exist.

I work in finance, and I'm telling you you're wrong. You're just blindly repeating idiocy you see on ZH or something.

However, keep on cruising if it makes you happy. There's nothing like peace of mind.

Will do. And you can keep on waiting for the sky to fall.

 

[djacobox372]

Not really. It was pay-as-you-go for most of its history. Then the gov't made adjustments (generating a surplus to be invested in bonds) to account for demographic changes in 1982. A big portion of our debt (roughly 16%) is to SS.

Good parroting of assorted ridiculous myths in the rest of your post, though. Too much to get into. One big one, FYI, is that when the trust fund runs out (and note that there would be none if you were right), it would revert to being pay-as-you go, but would only be funded at about three quarters.

It should be noted that the same people that call SS "broke" are the ones always going to it to borrow money.

Since when do you go to something that's "broke" to borrow money? The real reason many want to end SS is because they don't want to pay back the $$ they took from it.

 

[Malthian]

I work in finance, and I'm telling you you're wrong. You're just blindly repeating idiocy you see on ZH or something.

Will do. And you can keep on waiting for the sky to fall.

Yup, just parroting.

It couldn't possibly be because I'm supremely skeptical of government data reporting, corporate self-governance, and political and economic self-interest getting in the way of correct data and analysis. Not like that has ever happened, well, except for maybe that 2007 economic melt down due to derivatives under-written with over optimistic real estate projections, which was overseen by analysts who were given bonuses based upon the amount of instruments that they approved for clients, which were then pushed by brokers on the ground that were paid by commission. I'm sure that was an anomaly.

And have fun in finance. I'm sure your analysis, information and circle of acquaintances is very informed. My exposure to the finance crowd is actually pretty limited. I've been a hermit for a while so I don't really get to talk to finance guys like you.

Well, except for those two guys that I knew in high school. One is a managing director for one of the biggest Hedge funds on the planet and the other is a SVP for a mid size hedge fund (only deals with a few billion dollars instead of tens of billions).

And no, the sky never actually falls. It just breaks up from time to time, crushes a bunch of innocent people, and everyone who survives is left cleaning up the mess.

 

[Bloodworth]

Illegals send tons of cash out of the country on a constant basis. Fix that cash will be available.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It should be noted that the same people that call SS "broke" are the ones always going to it to borrow money.

Since when do you go to something that's "broke" to borrow money? The real reason many want to end SS is because they don't want to pay back the $$ they took from it.

Either way, no one is taking money from SS. The idea doesn't make sense. SS obligations are what they are, and the bonds it holds are what they are.

 

[7437]

Illegals send tons of cash out of the country on a constant basis. Fix that cash will be available.

Yeah, it's those damn illegal Mexicans with a ton of cash that are the problem. They have so much excess cash that they are sending out that America just can't handle it.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

I think it's too late unfortunately. To do it now we would have to cut govt, cut benefits etc. There would be chaos and riots in the streets.

Nonsense, the key is growth and demand side economics, Clinton left office with a surplus, and that idiot Bush handed it away with trickle down tax cuts claiming governments shouldn't run a surplus. Then the economic melt down of course that he was President during. All we need to do is focus on lowering the deficit, and once we get it into a negative we need to pay off the debt, this country has done it before and we can do it again.

The key, is not electing trickle down morons who know damn well their policies are what cause this massive debt.

Post WW2 every President paid down the debt as a percentage of GDP, until your boy Reagan came in with his BS economic strategy that has been proven to not work!

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

Illegals send tons of cash out of the country on a constant basis. Fix that cash will be available.

That is a small amount of money, needs to be fixed, but certainly not the primary solution.

 

[Tekk]

Illegals send tons of cash out of the country on a constant basis. Fix that cash will be available.

Are you saying they can't spend their money the way they want to..

 

[AWESOMEACE]

it is quite comical that people are actually starting to "get behind Trump." I over heard someone saying the looooovvvveeddd his immigration policy and that is what will win him this election. When it was explained to them that his ideas on handling immigration is what actually cost him any remote chance he could of possibly had, there was no response, other than, "I don't know I think the guy is good."