At 12:34 PM 2/17/2005 -0800, you wrote: >Gary Denton wrote: > >> This goes beyond being wrong. The "trust fund" is separate >> bookkeeping in the SS administration showing how much they take in and >> where they have invested their income. > >Exactly. The asset change per year is simple -- revenue in minus costs and benefits out. The fact >that the federal government has some siphons attached to the cash flow spigot doesn't change the >fact that this number has been increasing. The latter is a political problem, not a financial one.
Let me try and explain this again, since both you and Gary Denton are wrong on this. If you have a $100 bill, but you can not trade it, exchange it, or spend it, except when directed by some other party, do you actually own that bill? The presence of separate book-keeping doesn't mean diddly-squat. The question is who has the control? Sure, the Social Security Administration has government bonds, but if Congress were to pass a law establishing the Social Security Retirement Age as 80, then a good portion of those bonds wouldn't be a darned thing. The Social Security Administration couldn't trade them or exchange them for any other asset. The only thing they are good for is to commit the Federal Government to spend current general revenues on Social Security benefits. Nick, it is not just that the Social Security Administration is required by law to give its surpluses to the Federal Government to spend, it is also the reverse side of the coin - the fact that Social Security's obligations are backed by the Federal Government as well... all of which is combined with the fact that those so-called "bonds" can only be spent at the precise time and for the precise reason of the Federal Government's choosing. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
