You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.

Treasury Flooded Consumers With Money In December, Just In Time To Unleash Holiday Shopping "Animal Spirits"

Tyler Durden's picture




When you have your back against the wall, and the only thing at your disposal is the Fed's money printer on loan, what do you do? Well, if you are the Treasury, you let money rain. Literally. In December, according to the Financial Management Service, the US Treasury dispensed a stunning 69.5% more in Social Security Outlays and Unemployment Insurance on a year over year basis: the administration knew all too well it could not afford to let this holiday season go to waste. So, after averaging at $43.6 billion in monthly outlays, Social Security withdrawals from the UST surged by a unprecedented 48.6% in December to a whopping $69.5 billion. This is not a volatile or seasonal series.

Combine the previously discussed abnormal spike in unemployment insurance, and you get the following chart:

On a month-over-month percentage change basis, the combined December number is stunning: a 69.5% increase in Treasury spending to boost consumption no matter what the price.

So when everyone is discussing the amazing holiday retail season (which wasn't really that amazing, and was just a little over a 1% improvement compared to last year), will anyone take the time to normalize for monthly "stimuli" in the form of excess SSN and Unemployment payments? We didn't think so. We are confident that were someone to do that, it would disclose yet another insidious way in which the US Government is directly and indirectly subsidizing the economy, in an ever more failed attempt to boost consumer confidence of the ever more defunct American middle class.

h/t Mike




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:09 | Link to Comment Cursive
Cursive's picture

So, after averaging at $43.6 billion in monthly outlays, Social Security withdrawals from the UST surged by a unprecedented 48.6% in December to a whopping $69.5 billion. This is not a volatile or seasonal series.

OK, there really should be an investigation into this.  Don't call me naive.  This is Nixonian.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:06 | Link to Comment TraderMark
TraderMark's picture

Former US Comptroller David Walker preaching fiscal sense on CNBC this morning, 6 minute video

http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2010/01/david-walker-cnbc-january-2010-v...

 

Certainly we can expect him to be ignored for the 14th year running...

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:13 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Walker is like a lone voice of sanity.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:03 | Link to Comment Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

This is benign folks.  See my posts below for more detail.  There is no Jan 2010 SS payment to pre-1997 retirees because they were paid on 12/31/09.  The reason? 01/03/10 (the normal payment date) was on a Sunday, so the next prior Business Day was 12/31/09.

That makes 2 payments for Dec 09, causing the bump

Next scheduled payment is 02/03/10.

See http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/2009calendar.htm

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:37 | Link to Comment MortimerDuke
MortimerDuke's picture

I can appreciate where you're going with this, but would an extra payment for pre-97 recipients account for a bump equivalent to half of average monthly disbursements?  I can see where an extra payment might answer some of the question but I doubt pre-97 folks comprise that much of the outlay.

Note that in the link you provide (thanks) October had six disbursements just like December and barely a blip was registered.  Granted that additional payment was not for pre-97ers, but highlights the question of exactly how much of the monthly disbursements (percentage basis) these folks typically receive.

Thanks for the link.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Actually, it would make the difference.  The pre-97 (1x per month, usually) disbursement is about $22B.  The post-97 disbursements are staggered weekly and are about $8B each.  So an extra pre-97 disbursement would have an impact much more than an extra weekly disbursement.

I built a spreadsheet daily back to beginning of October, but I don't think I can post it.

 

I'll try to copy here


Th 1-Oct  $              229 F 2-Oct  $        22,211 M 5-Oct  $                36 T 6-Oct  $                38 W 7-Oct  $                69 Th 8-Oct  $                60 F 9-Oct  $                60 T 13-Oct  $                63 W 14-Oct  $          7,850 Th 15-Oct  $                43 F 16-Oct  $                44 M 19-Oct  $                46 T 20-Oct  $                52 W 21-Oct  $          7,754 Th 22-Oct  $                59 F 23-Oct  $                43 M 26-Oct  $                60 T 27-Oct  $                71 W 28-Oct  $          7,902 Th 29-Oct  $                  4 F 30-Oct  $                56 M 2-Nov  $              214 T 3-Nov  $        22,207 W 4-Nov  $                76 Th 5-Nov  $                38 F 6-Nov  $                58 M 9-Nov  $                58 T 10-Nov  $          7,923 Th 12-Nov  $                76 F 13-Nov  $                36 M 16-Nov  $                55 T 17-Nov  $                60 W 18-Nov  $          7,798 Th 19-Nov  $                52 F 20-Nov  $                40 M 23-Nov  $                48 T 24-Nov  $                29 W 25-Nov  $          7,940 F 27-Nov  $                  5 M 30-Nov  $                15 T 1-Dec  $              223 W 2-Dec  $                46 Th 3-Dec  $        22,271 F 4-Dec  $                45 M 7-Dec  $                20 T 8-Dec  $                42 W 9-Dec  $          8,132 Th 10-Dec  $                47 F 11-Dec  $                41 M 14-Dec  $                46 T 15-Dec  $                41 W 16-Dec  $          8,015 Th 17-Dec  $                51 F 18-Dec  $                35 M 21-Dec  $                52 T 22-Dec  $              111 W 23-Dec  $          8,169 Th 24-Dec  $                (2) M 28-Dec  $                22 T 29-Dec  $                  5 W 30-Dec  $                  9 Th 31-Dec  $        22,032
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 18:15 | Link to Comment MortimerDuke
MortimerDuke's picture

Excellent work.  I stand corrected.  Thank you for the follow up, anonymouse.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:49 | Link to Comment Howard_Beale
Howard_Beale's picture

This is indeed the case. It applied to everyone on disability as well. Two SS checks in December. Simple as that due to the holiday. And it did not pump up any holiday sales since the payment was on the 29th.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 18:41 | Link to Comment baserunr
baserunr's picture

It did not apply to all on disability as well.  Most likely applied on a proportional basis.  However, if this is truly the case, then would it not be that the January numbers would show a reduced outflow, when corrected for number of recipients?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:09 | Link to Comment ChickenTeriyakiBoy
ChickenTeriyakiBoy's picture

why didn't the guy who shot up the federal building in vegas get some of this action?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:59 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:01 | Link to Comment Cindy_Dies_In_T...
Cindy_Dies_In_The_End's picture

Is this more along the lines of the zombie zip codes getting "jobs" things? Because obviously the people are not getting cash. So take the difference between that and normal and look for where that cash went?

Whats the deal?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:10 | Link to Comment GoldmanBaggins
GoldmanBaggins's picture

I wonder what portion of total gross income is supplied by Uncle Sam these days.

I would bet 55-60%

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:57 | Link to Comment Baron Robber
Baron Robber's picture

see Rosenberg yesterday or the day before. Its 20% which is still an all time high.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:11 | Link to Comment Keep It Simple ...
Keep It Simple Stupid's picture

I don't get it. Who got this money? I don't think seniors got a big "pay" increase nor did the unemployed so who did this money get paid to? The charts are impressive but they don't tell us where the money actually went.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:20 | Link to Comment MarkD
MarkD's picture

I'm with you.....how did the money get into the system? Was the increase from unemployment extensions?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:22 | Link to Comment Wilderman
Wilderman's picture

I talked to a friend of mine last week who told me he received a phone call from the unemployment office, telling him an additional 10 weeks of gov't cheese had recently been added (he had previously run out of regular and extension benefits).  After some wrangling, they agreed to pay him retroactively for three weeks, so he got 3 weekly benefit checks around the end of Dec. 

Don't know if this is system wide, but could be a partial explanation...

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:33 | Link to Comment Winisk
Winisk's picture

Me too.  More facts are required here to flesh out the real story.  Did the number of people on Social Security surge (unlikely) or did they send out Christmas bonuses to everyone (unlikely)?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:57 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

If Christmas bonuses were sent out, my mother-in-law didn't get one and neither did her neighbors.  However, each of them did get the letter informing them of no COLA increase for 2010.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:29 | Link to Comment Enkidu
Enkidu's picture

I was wondering that too. Surely people who are logged on just get a regular payment - how can the Govn just post more $$$s to people?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:00 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:13 | Link to Comment xamax
xamax's picture

Am I in the wrong movie or what ? I start really to get angry and perhaps I should stop work like an idiot and wait til "Helicopter Ben" flies over my house !

Simply amazing !

 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:15 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Regardless of the explanations or rationalizations that will be used to explain these huge disbursements, they will be overshadowed by the very large "Mission Accomplished" banner flying during the state of the union address.

It's all about confidence and the powers that be know that the bottom line is public perception. If the consumer doesn't start spending real soon, the jig is up and we're all in deep trouble. Ironically if the consumer does start spending, we're still in big trouble. But it gets kicked down the road a few more years, which suits the suits just fine.

Extend and pretend is the new pledge of allegiance.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:46 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:58 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

Which consumer?

Do you mean the wealthy one buying new houses and then trying to flip them or rent them for 1/60th the purchase price per month?

Or the poor one picking up their groceries at the local food bank?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:20 | Link to Comment Winisk
Winisk's picture

I have a hard time believing that they are that imaginative and calculating that they can anticipate every angle and outcome in order to maintain the false perception.  I appreciate your out of the box thinking, but at some point, they have got to either get tangled up in their web of lies or the official narrative becomes so disconnected from reality that the lights will go on for even the most trusting of folks, and it's game over.  It will be interesting to see if the end will be a sudden GOTCHA moment, or a slow unravelling of truth that will be widely understood long before any dramatic change occurs. 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:24 | Link to Comment MortimerDuke
MortimerDuke's picture

Well done.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:57 | Link to Comment FullMetalJacket
FullMetalJacket's picture

It will be interesting to see if the end will be a sudden GOTCHA moment, or a slow unravelling of truth that will be widely understood long before any dramatic change occurs. 

The masses don't care about the truth....they are more than happy with cash, that's why it won't stop and more handouts will equal more demand for more handouts.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:35 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Yep. The truth is lying around in plain sight. There's just too much good programming on TV. Not to mention yammering with mom/co-workers/pestering the spouse about every little detail of their insignificant lives. 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:10 | Link to Comment TheGoodDoctor
TheGoodDoctor's picture

Yep. 24 starts next week. So, that will cause some action before the SOTU.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:13 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I was simply saying that extend and pretend is the name of the game and that this will end badly, either sooner or later. There is certainly room for disagreement on that front but what is it exactly that the government and Fed are doing if not extending and pretending?

Do you think there will be no consequences for the fraud, moral hazard and money creation/pumping that's going on? Do you think the Fed will successfully drain all this excess liquidity from the system? Do you think we can go back to where we were 5 years ago? I'm not being sarcastic. I really do want to know what you think is going on if not extend and pretend? I'm open to your ideas. In fact, I wish there was a way out and I'll listen to anyone who can explain to me how this will happen, other than pure hope.

BTW, the average person is beginning to awaken. Only instead of bringing out the pitch forks and rope, they're coming to the understanding that their retirements and general standard of living is dependent upon the system "recovering" or at least returning to where it was a few years ago. It is slowly dawning on them that they are captured by the system. And they hope this recovery will happen. I call this a false hope and I've said before that false hope binds us to impossible situations. Many people are aware to some degree of what's going on and their response is to not rock the boat, regardless of how outrageous or immoral it becomes.

They/we are doing the basic calculation of denial. If the system fails, I'm in big trouble. If the system limps along, I have a few more years of breathing room to enable me to "get out" or "get back to even" whatever that means. I've heard those words used often over the past year. The capacity for self deception by Joe 6 pack is breathtaking. I talk to clients and non clients all the time. I'm curious as to what people are thinking and I talk to strangers in checkout lines and at church, on the train and in the supermarket. People are actually very willing to talk. 

What I'm hearing is that the average Joe understands things are very bad. And while they want to believe what they're being told, that things are getting better, their personal experience tells them otherwise. In particular, the people over 40 recognize that each time we "recover" from a recession, they personally come out of it not quite as well as they thought they would. Their income doesn't go as far, they're deeper in debt, their children are struggling. So while the TV and papers might declare everything is finally better after each recession, they don't see it that way. And they feel in their bones that this time will be much worse than any time in their lifetime. And it frightens them to the core.

I find many people on ZH project their views, understanding and emotional stability upon the general public. We all have a tendency to do this (including myself) and I believe this is a mistake. This is why I talk to many people rather than assume I know what's going on. The average person allows them self to believe whatever they want to believe in order to do nothing. To them, doing nothing is the safest thing to do. They feel their response is a rational response and I would be hard pressed to argue otherwise, considering everyone feels isolated and powerless. But that doesn't mean they aren't going down with the ship.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

Best damn post I've seen from you yet man. Good job.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:32 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

I'm curious as to what people are thinking and I talk to strangers in checkout lines and at church, on the train and in the supermarket. People are actually very willing to talk.  . . .  In particular, the people over 40 recognize that each time we "recover" from a recession, they personally come out of it not quite as well as they thought they would.

As a soon-to-be 44-yearold, all I can say is well put.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:43 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

How are you today?

Just waiting for the economy to finally crash so I can get on with my life.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 19:00 | Link to Comment tomdub_1024
tomdub_1024's picture

nice one!! That will be my standard answer until further notice...

So glad I chose to voluntarily simplify a few years ago, that i could admit and consider the very real possibilities of where things could/would go and got mentally/emotionally over it (mostly...lol..still catch myself pining for summers and hunting season at my grandparents cabin occasionally...) and thought through, with lots of help from websites such as ZH, what actions to take.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:50 | Link to Comment Winisk
Winisk's picture

I wasn't challenging your thesis.  I agree with you for the most part.  I have detected from your posts that you feel that this extend and pretend can go longer than most of us would like it to.  I was pointing out that TPTB have their limits.  I have no doubt that they are manipulating the data stream to encourage confidence.  The question I have is how long they can keep this charade going without losing all credibility with the masses and then how will they react?  Lies have a tendency to compound and the further reality deviates from the perception they are attempting to project, the more distorted and bold the lies need to be.

I think we agree that many people are waking up and have a natural distrust of the government, more so than ever before.  People aren't that dumb.  And they probably don't care that much so long as their lives aren't negatively impacted.  They are comfortable being bought off.  But this has got to end.  I keep trying to think out scenarios how this all unwinds.  I'm conflicted.  I want to believe that nothing drastic occurs and somehow life manages to plod along without an extreme breaking point.  Yet my head can't wrap around all the facts that are presented here and imagine how it could possibly do that and I want this Ponzi to end.       

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:03 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

But this has got to end.  I keep trying to think out scenarios how this all unwinds.

Agreed.  Hint:  Ponzi schemes do not end prettily.  Government Ponzi schemes probably do not end peacefully.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm actually working on an article for ZH that will hopefully address (actually I have no solutions, just a spotlight) what you're talking about. The problem I've run into is that each time I look further down the rabbit hole, the bigger it gets.

I've decided this morning to break the article into separate pieces to be more easily digestible. It will also allow me to screw up my courage because a lot that I will talk about will rub some people the wrong way.

One conclusion I'm coming to is that the psychopaths who are destroying our world don't exist in a vacuum. They can't exist without being enabled by the general population. The problem, while clearly the psychopaths, is ultimately us for allowing the psychopaths to operate. This is not what many people wish to hear. We do not live in an age of personal responsibility.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:23 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, Etienne de la Boite

It's an old work.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 15:22 | Link to Comment TaggartGalt
TaggartGalt's picture

Thanks for the reference.  Available online here:

http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:10 | Link to Comment xamax
xamax's picture

The question I have is how long they can keep this charade going without losing all credibility with the masses and then how will they react?

I am often confronted with the same questions like you. This ponzi scheme can keep going for a while , I would guess 2 - 3 years. BUT : you can be sure that few if nobody of the jerks who are currently destryoing economies with unpredictable issues will still be in place at this moment. I bet with you that in 2 years, Zimbabwe Ben, Tini Tim , his majesty L.Summers will be somewhere on a sunny beach with millions in their pocket. Or did you see only one of the many banksters go only 1 day to jail last year ?     

 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:26 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

See the Sunk Costs fallacy

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:14 | Link to Comment Scooby Dooby Doo
Scooby Dooby Doo's picture

h/t Mike is bringing the goods.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:15 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:03 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

Negative.

In fact, since some of us qualified for EB it caused the disbursing state to roll back initial claim period from 30 to 26 weeks.  Some more of us who did 2 weeks of temporary work in a state other than the disbursing state have now been informed that, to make the switch to EB, we must first apply for UI benefits from the state in which we did the temp work. 

Then once we have our disqualification letter in hand, we can return to the disbursing state with the letter to be moved onto EB retroactive to the exhaustion date of initial benefit. 

Welcome to the Twilight Zone!

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:27 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

Someone before asked where the money went... That's the real question alright. Obviously we didn't get it in the market, and well nobody bought homes with it.

I do have to say I'm amazed at the intense rapidity of these "inflationary" treasury posts flooding the front page.

I think we're getting closer to the truth, but not in the way that our banking overlords would like.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:25 | Link to Comment EB
EB's picture

Social Security will go in the red in 2010:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15639.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:29 | Link to Comment Missing_Link
Missing_Link's picture

...

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:41 | Link to Comment gold_tracker
gold_tracker's picture

Absolutely stunning.

I can't look at stuff like this an not get a bit nervous for the future of our society and freedoms.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:42 | Link to Comment Sancho Ponzi
Sancho Ponzi's picture

$40 billion of 'Unclassified' withdrawals for the month of December? WTF?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:46 | Link to Comment Fur Trader
Fur Trader's picture

This is great intel.  Not quite on topic, who knows best place to get realtime volume... for all the usual subjects (other than TV); thanks.

FT

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:47 | Link to Comment Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

Well I'm confused. The following is from the SSTF These are the payments they made by month for the full year 2009. There is a $1 b jump in December over November, but that does not account for the big jump that ZH refers to. So this money went out the door some other way than SS. How did that happen??

PS. The SS number for December at $57 bil is something to focus on. That is a lot of money.

 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:55 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

Perhaps ZH would be willing to ask Mike to provide his data source for a more transparent story. Otherwise we got conflicting information like a U3 U6 debate.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:05 | Link to Comment Sancho Ponzi
Sancho Ponzi's picture

Maybe it was due to Jan payments being disbursed in Dec due to the holiday.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:51 | Link to Comment KidHorn
KidHorn's picture

What was the big bump in May or June of 09 for?

Maybe it's for the same thing only bigger this time.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:21 | Link to Comment Trifecta Man
Trifecta Man's picture

My guess is from the extra $250 per person the government gave out one-time earlier this year.

http://www.triskele.com/2009/02/18/extra-250-coming-for-folks-getting-so...

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:56 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

Perhaps it went to our Corporate (a.k.a. Wealthy Ruling Class) Bailout sponsors

 

In other news, let's increase the non-taxable limit on inheritances for more of the following :

------------------------

          LOS ANGELES – Casey Johnson, an heiress to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, lived the life of a Hollywood socialite — partying with Paris Hilton, posing for paparazzi, becoming engaged to bisexual reality TV star Tila Tequila and like her idol Marilyn Monroe, dying young.

------------------------

Perhaps the more humane thing to do is make the rich earn a living rather than wasting mommy and daddies (a.k.a. Taxpayer bailout) money.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:12 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:56 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:02 | Link to Comment Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

look at month to date column for Dec. 31, 2008: http://fms.treas.gov/dtsarchive/fy%202009/08123100.pdf

Here is full prior year archive: http://fms.treas.gov/dtsarchive/

 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:12 | Link to Comment ShankyS
ShankyS's picture

TD - so what you are proving is that there really is a Sant Clause. Thanks. At 46 I was really beginning to wonder if he was real or not.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:30 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

I must have been naughty in '09 then because I am unemployed and did not see one extra dime.  In fact, my initial claim was shortened by 4 weeks (since I qualify for EB) but the first I heard about it was when I filed my weekly claim two weeks ago and was told by the automated voice that I had exhausted my benefit.  Oh yeah, my final weekly claim was paid out at 23% of the standard weekly amount.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:13 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

The anecdotal evidence (mother-in-law and neighbors did not receive additional SSI outlays in December, UI recipients do not seem to have received additional outlays either) is compelling that this swelling of outlays was not directed at the official recipients.  So, yes, where did this money go?

Perhaps a more appropriate title for this post is Treasury "Flooded Consumers" With Money In December, Just In Time To Unleash Holiday Shopping "Animal Spirits" or Treasury Gives the Appearance of Having Flooded Consumers With Money In December, Just In Time To Unleash Holiday Shopping "Animal Spirits"

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:17 | Link to Comment Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

I'm looking into the older Daily Statements, but at first blush this appears to be an artifact of the calendar.  Every Wednesday in December, there was a payment of about $8.1B, but on 12/3 and 12/31 (Thursdays), there was a payment of $22B (and no large payment the prior day).

Since these are 4 weeks apart, it seems that may explain the large amount in December, and possibly the bump earlier in the year.  If there are 5 Thursdays in that month, payments would be greater.

Doesn't explain why there aren't more bumps in the past though.

But I think this may be benign

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:24 | Link to Comment B9K9
B9K9's picture

Miles Kendig - how do you suspect QE will be forced to be withdrawn?

Ned Zeppelin - you cannot believe forced withdrawal will come as a result of a populist outpouring of resentment against Q.

Let me provide you fine gentlemen three examples of how military tactics rapidly evolved over the last 200 years:

  • Napoleonic era - Scouts from opposing sides began to engage in minor skirmishes. The confrontations between skirmishers continued to escalate in size & importance until they practically became the main focus of battle. The losses incurred by the French during their retreat from Moscow were caused primarily by guerrillas aka skirmishers.
  • WWI-WWII - In 1914, unarmed scout planes providing enemy recognisance began to engage in minor skirmishes. By 1944, only a short 30 years later, air superiority was accepted as fundamentally critical to any successful military campaign.
  • The Iraq war, and now wider ME conflicts, have conclusively demonstrated the effectiveness of asymmetrical warfare, especially when an insurgency reaches the critical 20% support threshold. Significant military training & resources are now devoted to combating this treat.

The point I'm trying to make is that new trends always begin on the margins. Of course we're never going to see something like Audit the Fed. I mean, who has time to waste on that shit? Dams rarely break due to immediate overall failure - it's always a small crack that initiates the deluge.

Likewise, look for the small things/incipient trends in the political landscape. I can't predict what particular shape/form it/they will take; all I can say with confidence is to rely on Newton ie equal and opposite reaction.

That's why I suggest watching, waiting & observing the herd. You can feel the tension; the key is to be able to identify the moment events begin to go critical. Once we reach a cascade point in terms of popular sentiment, then the entire monetary/fiscal fraud built upon a cheap facade of printed tickets will begin to crumble.

That's the tell, not just for the end of QE, but for the unleashing of the debt-deflation tsunami.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:48 | Link to Comment B9K9
B9K9's picture

I should add that the Fed & Treasury are more than well aware of these fundamental factors. It's why they're doing what they are doing ie consistently violating basic Constitutional principles. They know what will happen when the whole shebang goes down.

All the PTB are doing is hoping & praying some kind of miracle emerges from the future. But as Trav and others have noted, the necessary ingredients in terms of energy utility & economic efficiencies are sadly lacking. Without sufficient productive output, we simply do not have the ability to pyramid & carry the additional tranche(s) of debt necessary to propel another fractional reserve lending cycle.

Again, think of the slow-mo collapse of the Twin Towers to see how the physics of implosion play out.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

+1

Sometimes I think I spend too much time here instead of over at Fox and HuffPo - when I can't tell what some of my friends are talking about I now I need to force myself to sit down and watch some South Park. And then some stand-up comedy after that. Oh look, the Daily Show is actually on right now!

About the TT: I would say that falling at near terminal velocity isn't slo-mo, although, watching it, in horror, those 100+ floors take a long time to go down.  

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:34 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

We rode 150 years on oil.  The horse is tired now.

As for the Twin Towers and the whole "what to do" TSHTF/TEOTWAWKI thing, one theme emerges, be it from tsunamis or any other unanticipated disaster...the best course is to not be there.  Absent that, luck is what determines survivors versus those no longer con nosotros.

If growth has stopped, which I maintain it has, then the future bodes ill for paper promises based upon expectations of growth.  Simple as that.

Either way, I'm in nuclear, oil, gold.  Real things.  Even in Afghanistan, they have cellphones next to bombed out houses.  Life goes on even if my kids don't end up owning twice the cars I have (one of which I never drive)

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:22 | Link to Comment TheGoodDoctor
TheGoodDoctor's picture

I've been thinking of an inverted pyramid. Like that it will collapse on top of itself. Like the opposite of a pyramid scheme.

Speaking of pyramids. When Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs is not being met, the shit will hit the fan.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:29 | Link to Comment A tumor named Marla
A tumor named Marla's picture

Solution:

1.  If you're on SS currently, you'll keep receiving it until you die.  Old farts everywhere must hear this first.

2.  If you're not on SS currently, a check for the amount in "your" account (plus interest -- say 6%) will be cut in your name.  It will not be mailed or electronically deposited; you have to physically pick it up at the county courthouse.  Illegal immigrants will be arrested and deported, people with warrants in any state or federal jurisdiction will be arrested.  The illegals' checks go back to the Treasury; other arrestees' checks will be held and a family member may pick it up after arraignment.

3.  The check is yours to do with as you like -- blow it, invest it, whatever.  Your retirement is your responsibility; the gov't has no further stake in your post-career costs of living.

4.  The truly disabled can still continue to receive SS.  Panels of physicians will be set up by each state to review each case and to examine candidates.  Those that are determined to not be truly disabled in the true sense of the word will be cut off and no further SS funds disbursed to them.  Those that are truly disabled will continue to receive SS; it will be a line item on the budget and is not to be used for other purposes.  The amount in the budget will not increase beyond a cost of living adjustment.

5.  Medicare gets similar treatment -- if you're on it, you can continue to receive it.  If you're not, you get a refund plus interest for any funds that have been taken on your SS number.

6.  The paycheck grab for SS/Medicare/FICA ends.  Your money is yours -- set your retirement plans accordingly, and don't come crying to the gov't or taxpayers when you've shorted yourself down the road.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:44 | Link to Comment I need more cowbell
I need more cowbell's picture

Could you and 400+ of your friends please run for all seats in Congress? You have my and all my friends votes.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:46 | Link to Comment A tumor named Marla
A tumor named Marla's picture

My actual plan is to generate enough wealth to buy the Presidency outright and then veto every spending bill that isn't exactly what I submit to Congress (i.e. MASSIVE cuts across the board in all departments, complete elimination of most federal gov't functions, etc).  A 2,500 page budget becomes about 10 overnight; if they don't like it, they can try to override but probably won't due to a few conservative strongholds.  Most of the 535 would retire or be chased out at the next midterm.....

Interesting thought -- how about a ZH congress?  You can bet the SEC would function, business regulations would be sensible and few, taxation all but eliminated, and transparency in reporting......

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:59 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:49 | Link to Comment A tumor named Marla
A tumor named Marla's picture

You wouldn't be able to make it illegal -- the Congress will never go along with that.  The power in this scenario is the willingness to not have a bunch of agenda items that require Congress' cooperation -- the real goal is complete elimination of 95% of gov't, and that is done by veto or threat of veto, with no quarter given in terms of dealmaking.

I think the lobbying vampires would face self-elimination. No opportunity for graft = pretty much no lobbying.  If the little kings and queens on Capitol Hill can't give out candy anymore, the kids won't bother and they'll go elsewhere.  Eventually the little kings and queens decide that it's no fun anymore, and we can put responsible adults in those seats.

It's all predicated on a strong-willed President that is completely unwilling to give in to the political hacks; it would take a TRUE outsider, otherwise the system starts rolling again.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:46 | Link to Comment A tumor named Marla
A tumor named Marla's picture

My actual plan is to generate enough wealth to buy the Presidency outright and then veto every spending bill that isn't exactly what I submit to Congress (i.e. MASSIVE cuts across the board in all departments, complete elimination of most federal gov't functions, etc).  A 2,500 page budget becomes about 10 overnight; if they don't like it, they can try to override but probably won't due to a few conservative strongholds.  Most of the 535 would retire or be chased out at the next midterm.....

Interesting thought -- how about a ZH congress?  You can bet the SEC would function, business regulations would be sensible and few, taxation all but eliminated, and transparency in reporting......

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:25 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:16 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

You are forgetting all of the crazies, alcoholics and drug addicts that do not qualify for any retirement benefits due to disability but receive welfare courtesy of the SSI program. The disheveled currently receive around $860 a month to continue their drinking and drugging unabated. They will continue to receive money from all of us who paid in even though they qualify for no retirement... until the end of time.

Analysis shows SS Administration is ill equipped to administer a welfare program based on the level of fraud in the SSI program.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:24 | Link to Comment loki
loki's picture

Amen to that!

 

How many kids were labelled disabled by inner city moms looking for checks for their "mentally ill" kids -- and had coaching for kids on how to act.  They did a show a long time ago on 20/20 or 60 minutes about it.   Whoooo  hooooo....  free money for everyone!   Me?  I gotta work for mine.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:42 | Link to Comment A tumor named Marla
A tumor named Marla's picture

You're right -- I was only thinking about the old farts.  It would definitely have to be amended to include a function of age and whether or not they have contributed anything.

If there is nothing in an account under their SSN and they are under 65, no check is cut and no further SS is paid out.

Welfare of course goes as well; I was just speaking strictly of SS/Medicare for this discussion.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:15 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

NSA jacking with my internet connection leading to double posts... again. At least one federal agency is working...

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:56 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

They're the biggest, but they still just throw darts like everyone else. The only thing holding our economy together is speech-writers and occasional quick thinking when cornered. 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:16 | Link to Comment Heroic Couplet
Heroic Couplet's picture

Under 2, you should include everyone here in the US on H1B visas. They are usually top income earners.  They also qualify for all entitlements.

At the same time the top billionaires are sending jobs offshore to Bangalore, India, for example, Microsoft-Gates, Oracle-Ellison, Dell-Dell, (also IBM-Palmisano and whoever else), Bill Gates is prowling Capitol Hill to increase the inflow of H1B visa applicants for jobs in the United States, under the lie "American education isn't good enough."  Given that the company or corporation name appears on the W-2 form, all tech CEOs should have to reveal how many jobs they've sent offshore, and then bill them for the workforce they left behind. Then, and only then, go to the US government (i.e. me, the taxpayer) for entitlements.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:52 | Link to Comment A tumor named Marla
A tumor named Marla's picture

Only citizens get checks; everyone else donates what they've been robbed of back to the Treasury for the privilege of working and earning in the best country on earth.  They can take comfort in the fact that they'll no longer be losing a fair-sized chunk of their paycheck.  Now, if they go ahead and become citizens before the checks are cut I have no problem letting them keep what's been stolen.

When I buy the Presidency I'm gonna hire the smart guys around here to run things -- love your idea about holding CEOs accountable for outsourcing!

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 21:25 | Link to Comment tomdub_1024
tomdub_1024's picture

a.)tax credits

b.)no long term committment to employee

c.)no/little benefits cost

d.)it goes on another department's budget

e.) less "uppitiness", as the h1b worker is in a tenuous/temporary position

I have been in a fortune 40 IT dept, thats what I saw, and my manager and director confided such after a few drinks...

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:29 | Link to Comment TheGoodDoctor
TheGoodDoctor's picture

It's simple really tax them 5 times what they would pay a US citizen for every H1B Visa job they have. That would encourage them to hire US citizens. The H1B Visa program and immigration needs to be put on permanent hold until we get our crisis over.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:51 | Link to Comment A tumor named Marla
A tumor named Marla's picture

I like the idea in principle, but I'm not sure about its constitutionality....I think there might be Equal Protection issues.  Probably the best route to take would be to jack up the taxes on the H1B holders themselves, thereby encouraging them to become citizens or go back home.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:18 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:39 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

This is insane.

They need people to pay in in order to be able to pay benefits to anyone.

SS is insolvent TODAY because the relatively few people we have consuming benefits are exceeding the taxes paid in by all the people not consuming.

None of your solutions actually solves anything - they make the fiscal picture even worse, dramatically worse.  Every surplus during the 90s was SS, not general budget...they have spent trillions and trillions, tens of trillions, in surpluses over the years in the general budget.  Now we face the hour when obligations equal receipts and it's no accident that our fiscal picture has worsened so dramatically.

If they cut out taxes for SS and Medicare tomorrow but continued to pay benefits, that'd blow a $1.5T per year additional hole in the budget.  Nevermind the refund...where in hell would that money come from?  You're talking tens of trillions.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 15:58 | Link to Comment A tumor named Marla
A tumor named Marla's picture

"They need people to pay in in order to be able to pay benefits to anyone."

<b>That's</b> the insane part -- it's ponzi thinking.  Hell, there's no money in the SS fund anyway; they're not even bothering to pretend to keep up anymore.  The money that has been stolen for generations and replaced with IOU's gets paid back by taking money from the other departments and programs that have benefitted from using the SS funds.  They're supposed to pay it back, right?  Then they need to have their funds reallocated to the payout.  If that leaves them with nothing, then we've accomplished 2 goals. 

It's a huge hit to be sure, but it's one-time (as opposed to a rolling hit like we have now).  After that, it's a small payout for at most another generation plus a trickle for the disabled; literally nothing compared to the current situation. 

Is it really better to keep a behemoth bleeding us all to death and providing a bulletproof graft/corruption vehicle?

My idea is no more insane than leading a bunch of barefoot farmers in the dead of winter against a well-armed, well-fed, and disciplined force that was arguably the dominant world power in 1776. 

We just have to stop thinking along old lines and remember what the gov't is really supposed to be. 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:30 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:31 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:46 | Link to Comment cmalbatros
cmalbatros's picture

Could this be section 8 housing? rented out by the banks to avoid disclosing foreclosures prior to the multi trillion $ move to PPIP and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:55 | Link to Comment Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

I was close in my earlier post, but not quite.  It is not a 4 week schedule that caused the bump.  The great majority of payments (SS pmts to those that began receiving them before 1997) are paid on the 3rd of the month.  But if the 3rd is a holiday or weekend, they are paid beforehand. 

So in Dec 09, there were 2 payments (12/3, the normal date and 12/31, in advance of 1/3/10).  There is no SS pmt for pre-1997 retirees in Jan 10 as they already received it on 12/31/09.

That explains the Dec bump.  It is benign.  It does not explain the May 09 bump as there was only 1 pmt that month.  Could be a chart artifact (if Excel used 4 week date increments).

Schedule is at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/2009calendar.htm

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:08 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:18 | Link to Comment Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Great sleuthing, but that's not the point of this post. We are confident there is a reason for the calendar shift, whatever it may be. However,the cash was disbursed in time for the confidence critical holiday season. The real question is absent the roughly $25 billion delta in incremental funds (SSN + UI) , how much would consumers (especially the unemployed and SSN recipients) purchase and, more relevantly, how would retailers fare on the margin. I.e., the question on renormalization of retail data.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:39 | Link to Comment Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

A fair question and certainly there is a lot of data manipulation going on (like -1.8% revision to GDP).

Just be aware that the additional money ($22B) came in on 12/31 so it was after Christmas.  Does 12/31 get included in calculations of Christmas spending?  I know the malls were very busy that day (at least mine was).  I never thought of New Year's Eve as a big shopping day.

If 12/31 is included as Christmas spending for retail reporting, then it is relevant.  If so, January retail will have a huge dip if Dec had been juiced by SS.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:49 | Link to Comment Biggvs
Biggvs's picture

How would moving the Jan payment to 12/31 help holiday retailers? The egg nog was already expiring in the back of the fridge. Is it me or is the premise of this article looking a little out there?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:13 | Link to Comment Green Sharts
Green Sharts's picture

We are confident there is a reason for the calendar shift, whatever it may be.

Revisionism.  You suggested it was something more sinister than a calendar shift.  If this policy has been in place for years it is wrong to suggest it was some kind of effort to juice this year's holiday shopping numbers.

However,the cash was disbursed in time for the confidence critical holiday season.

Because Social Security payments were made on December 31 instead of January 3?  Most recipients probably didn't even know to look for the deposit in their account and for those who did I doubt it caused many of them to run out to the store and shop.

This is a complete non-story.  Any competent analyst would look at the 2 outlier data points and figure there had to be a rational explanation for them.  But to a man with a conspiracy theory hammer, every odd data point looks like a nail.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:51 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

I am not suggesting that anything more sinister is going on.  I stated it point blank.  See my post #184546 below this one.  Where's my bump if the government data cited are accurate?

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:46 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

Tyler,

As a UI claimant who did not see a bump in weekly benefit and, in fact, saw a 77% drop in weekly benefit for w/e 12/26/09, I am questioning any numbers released showing delta in incremental funds to UI claimants.  It is not my personal experience and I doubt I am the only person in the US who experienced this.  Therefore, any data released by the government which point to a large change in this area are either a red herring (at best) or a smokescreen for diversion of these funds somewhere else for other purposes (at worst), IMO.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:57 | Link to Comment orangedrinkandchips
orangedrinkandchips's picture

Everyday I grow more and more outraged and yet at the same time more and more helpless.

This administration is so much worse than Nixon ever was. Talk about a bear market in ethics at the top level. Both the Bushes are just crooks but I thought Obama would stand up to this manipulation but I was fooled again.

we are in such deep shit folks. Ben cant hold back the dike.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:01 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

Everything I can find suggests that each state makes claim filing a weekly torture/chore/humiliation.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:15 | Link to Comment Yophat
Yophat's picture

There was a bump in the 1st half of December in unemployment borrowing from the Feds by the states....but overall the increase in borrowing is still rising and is more representative of the overall trend rather than a one time bump...data and sources at my blog -
http://yophat.blogspot.com/

Excerpts:

As of January 4th 2010, 4 more states have been given lines of credit for unemployment borrowing bringing the total to 30. The states added include:
Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Current authorization for January 2010 borrowing totals $7,516,290,804.00

State Unemployment borrowing from the Fed over equal 29 day cycle:

US Average Daily Unemployment borrowing (Total for 25 states currently borrowing):
Nov 3rd to Dec 2nd - $69,596,132.41
Dec 2nd to Dec 31st - $141,110,833.86
Percentage Increase - 102.8%

January 1st 2009 there were 3 states borrowing from the Fed. December 31st 2009 we had 26 states borrowing from the Fed.

The Total State Trust Fund Balance of states not borrowing from the Fed on September 30th 2008 was $36,278,103,798.00

On September 30th 2009 the balance for states not borrowing from the Fed was $12,823,627,865.00 for a decline of 64.65% over the year.

Accruing at 5% interest! Doesn't show up in the General Fund budgets as it will come directly from unemployment tax on businesses. Starting January 1st 2010 the unemployment tax in most states will double or triple. Expect similar increases throughout the year and in the years to come. This will further incentivize employers to cut employees and procrastinate new hiring.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:16 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

The banks got the January funds early.

Many of them did not make it available until Monday.

 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:42 | Link to Comment Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Now that would be a scandal.

It would have no impact on Dec retail sales though.

But more importantly would boost bank reserves for month end reporting.  That would be even bigger than retail sales manipulation.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:26 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:59 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 15:54 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:02 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

We did along with a big red L to wear on our winter coats so as to make us more easily identifiable.  I burned mine.

A lot of people in December got large unemployment checks for the time that they ran out before the extension went into effect.

Seriously, what is your data source for this statement?  The Federal government's data for "disbursements"?  Data at the state level?  Given the rather large body of evidence regarding inaccurate/manipulated government statistics, I'm having a hard time believing any such statements or data. 

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:17 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:33 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 15:06 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:35 | Link to Comment TheGoodDoctor
TheGoodDoctor's picture

Christ Almighty that is a scary thought!

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 21:51 | Link to Comment Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Don't put anything past them.

 

Although inthis case it does seem to be a cut-off 'error', moreso than a boost in disbursements.  Impossible to know, isn't that reassuring?  Transparency, disclosure, what alien concepts.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 18:18 | Link to Comment Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Part of the Social Security outlays can be traced back to the Martinez v Astrue case.  Social Security for years has withheld benefit payments if the recipient had a felony warrant (NOT a felony conviction) filed against them, according to SSA.  This witholding even happened when there was a finding of not guilty, a conviction of less than felony level offenses and SSA had even failed to ensure that there was a valid name/SSN match between claimant and defendant.  The authority to SSA is to withhold benefits when a recipient is fleeing or escaping.   SSA entered into an agreement to pay back all of the benefits it has withheld under this program to the tune of 500m and an estimated 200K Americans (cases of fleeing, escape or proibation violation are excluded).  I admit that 500m when stacked up against 10's of billions isn't much... still.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/martinezsettlement/

http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/447

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 20:30 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!