11 days until your SS checks might be interrupted

Calling them insurance is okay, but the benefits aren't guaranteed.

They sure as heck aren't an investment.

 

You probably lecture your lawyer about the law, your doctor about medicine, etc.

You just can't resist making up positions for me.

Check out who is on the Board...

https://www.epi.org/about/board/

They're leftwing ideologues and pols.

 

Langleyman is mostly correct on this one.

The SS tax not immediately paid out in benefits is a loan to the US government. That’s what the T bonds are my friend. They are a vehicle allowing the government to borrow SS tax revenue to fund other parts of government.

Also, ANY time taxes are withheld (from paychecks etc.) or pre paid the government is receiving an interest free loan.

I’m not sure where anyone could come up with the idea no tax is a loan.

You have to be joking.

You can’t see how taking your kid to and paying for baseball games/coaching/practice opportunities is an investment? In some kids it builds valuable skills in cooperation and determination. In others it results in a sports scholarship to college worth far more than money spent on the child. For others it results in a MLB career with lifetime earnings in the hundreds of millions. As I said, you folks have NO idea what an investment is.

LOL. You made these claims.

Those claims are patently false according to historical records reported by the SSA.

Longer life expectancy was NOT a surprise to SS. Prior to its formation the average life expectancy was growing at the fastest rate in history. Social security was set up KNOWING lifespans were increasing dramatically and was intentionally set up as a pay as you go (Ponzi component) before payments were imitated.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#:~:text=Benefits were to be based,payments were advanced to 1940.)

Pay as you go (the major Ponzi component) was implemented before any benefits were issued. It was not a part of the original legislation but was an amendment put in place before payments began.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/50mm2.h...Act, enacted,by employees and their employers.

Yes, longevity was increasing at the fastest rate in history in the decades prior to SS being conceived and implemented. Because of advances in medicine and hygiene. Increasing longevity was the main REASON social security was implemented. Further increases were not a surprise. That’s a false premise.

All the aspects I’ve described, pay as you go etc. were implemented BEFORE any payments were made. That’s just the facts.

No, I’ve stated facts. Pay as you go was implemented in 1939, four years prior to when payments were supposed to start. Payments were started early in 1940 however, two years AFTER pay as you go was adopted. This is not my opinion, this is historical fact as reported by the SSA.

I would rather see more people invest in themselves to the point they do not need SS. Again, Langleyman has the right idea there.

“Printing money” is a common colloquialism referring to ALL increases in the money supply. Repeating Wikipedia to me is a waste of both our time as I’m well aware of how monetary supply is increased.

According to the SEC definition it does. Take it up with them.

No profit motive? People paying attention expect an approximate 5% ROI on money they invest in SS. And if there was no profit motive to investing trust funds in T bonds those T bonds would not be interest bearing.

The Motley Fool? I don’t get my information on climate change from oil companies. LOL.

It is amusing they refer to SS as an investment.

I have never claimed SS is seeking to derive profit for itself from preying on the public. That’s your strawman.

But the Fool’s claim SS isn’t trying to profit in any way is false. It wouldn’t be buying interest bearing T bonds if there was no profit motive. SMH.

The Fool has a vested interest in promoting investments they can profit from. I’ll go with the SSA historical records thank you.

I’ve posted no misconception. You on the other hand keep posting things the SSA itself refutes. And you reject the standard accepted definition of investment.

Absolutely there is an expectation of return. Even investors in Ponzi’s expect a return! If I invest in SS I expect a return. When I buy a pair of fencing pliers and 10 lbs of barbed staples I expect a return even if it’s difficult to place an exact monetary value on that return.

If you can’t figure out how investing time, money, and other resources in kids pays off there is little hope of you EVER understanding investing at all.

Government could take all tax revenue and put it under a mattress (colloquialism alert) somewhere. But you and others would quickly revolt because of the poor ROI on the taxes you paid. Government must engage in public investment of tax revenue or we would not support taxation for long.

We are all INVESTED in government. If it didn’t provide returns we wouldn’t make the investment any longer!

Quite the contrary. You have NO idea what investment means. Not all spending is investment. That is true. Buying a kid a pair of cleats is a much better investment than buying them crack cocaine to do with their buddies. But how in the hell would you calculate the advantage of cleats over crack cocaine? So cleats CANNOT be an investment, right? SMH

Yes, dependency is a reality. I used to be more dependent on government. Now I’m much more independent. It’s worth the effort. It’s a VERY good investment.

 

I correct disinformation no matter who is spouting it. Appeal to authority is a dangerous position to put oneself in.

I have resisted so far.

If your doctor or attorney is a lefty does that make them wrong?

 

I'll say. Fractional banking creates money temporarily-very temporarily. The government creates it permanently. Don't fall for the fractional banking idea. It is accounting, not an actual change in value.

 

Most Trump supporters are stuck on "Back the Blue". They are rather like establishment Democrats and Republicans and seem to envision a Big Government that serves their own perceived priorities.

IMO, at this point, all Americans should be focused on political action to transfer control of most of the revenue flowing into government to individual members of the productive working class. That might still be a barely achievable goal.

 

One thing that stood out to me about the debt deal Repubs agreed to. The domestic spending cuts only last for two years. As in, if the Repubs win the WH in 2024, the 2025 budget doesn't have to reflect the cuts. Hmmmmmmm.

 

This requires explaining.

 

What is your plan to help (or deal with) people you don't see as "productive?" Tens of millions of Americans are falling out of the middle class or from further down into poverty.

 

You're the economist. I'll defer to your expertise.