This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Social Security Full Fiscal Year Results – Flash Report
In Washington, almost every report is late. The exception is Social Security. They have their numbers for September posted as of today. The folks in D.C. run their clocks on a fiscal year that ends in September. The following are the results and YoY comparisons for fiscal 2010 and 2011 for SS.
Both the top line revenue and benefit expenses rose over the year. It’s not surprising to see that the pace of payouts is continuing to outstrip the rate of revenue growth.
It should be noted that the $24.3b of increased payments is not a result of a COLA (inflation) adjustment. There has been no inflation adjusted increases in the past two years for SS. The higher 2011 payout is exclusively the result of more retiring workers becoming eligible for benefits. The number of new beneficiaries is now growing by 10,000 a day, 7 days a week. That number is going up in fiscal 2012. It will go up every year for the next 14 (The boomers are coming on fast and steady).
I believe that there will be a COLA adjustment for 2012. I estimate ~2%. The inflation adjustment and the aging population will result in an increase in benefit payments next year of ~$40 billion (5.7%). With revenues rising much less than that, the red ink at SS is going to rise next year and for as far as I can see into the future.
What matters (to me) is cash flow. On the critical measure of FICA tax revenues minus Benefits the number comes up negative. For 2011 it will be $57.9 B in deficit. That compares to the red ink a year before that was (only) $47.2B.
The other Cash components that I am estimating for fiscal 2011 include:
Tax on Benefits = +$23b
RR retirement = -$5b
Overhead = -$7b
The sum of all the cash components brings the annual number to -$46.9b versus 2010’s -$36.2. Clearly, things are continuing to head the wrong way at the SSTF
Interest Income is a component of the picture that is not paid in cash. It is paid in script. I expect this number to be $114b. When the "paper" is included in the calculation it will look as if (and be reported as such) that there is a net surplus of $67.1b. I think this is deceiving. The Headline will read “Surplus”, but the reality is that SS is just a drain on us today. It is just a larger promise that has to be kept tomorrow.
For those who “Cheer” a surplus that includes phony interest I point out that in 2006/2007 the surplus was $190b and in 2008 (just 3 years ago) it was $180b. 2011 shows a significant slowdown. The Surplus will have fallen by 2/3rds from that recorded in 2007 (before TSHTF). In a matter of a few short years (and way ahead of the current forecasts) there will be no surplus at all. Not even one made out of confetti.
There are significant adjustments that have been made to the 2010/11 numbers. These represent re-statements of prior years estimates. The adjustment amount in 2010 came to a -$26b. So far in 2011 only $14bn has been recorded. Of the $13.6b of improved tax receipts in 2011, approximately $9b comes from changes in YoY adjustments. In other words, the apples to apples comparison of revenues is only +$4.0b (0.6%).
The annual adjustments to income cloud the results at SS. My conclusion is that on a straight comparison basis there is very little YoY change in revenues at SS. The implication is that there is little growth in total payrolls and there is little growth in wages. That’s not surprising at all. I expect that this will show up in the next few months of NFP numbers. I would, as a rule, take the “Under” on all those estimates.
There is one interesting thing to consider with SS. They have this paper surplus called a Trust Fund. That Trust Fund earns paper interest. Lots of it. At the end of the year that fund will total $2.65 trillion. It will have an investment average maturity of 7 years. The rate of interest paid to SS is currently 4.25%.
Now consider that the Treasury yields today for 7 years is a measly 1.58%. The difference of 2.67% comes to a whopping $70 billion a year in “excess” interest being paid to SS.
If one applied this same thinking to SS’s sisters, (the Military and Federal Workers Funds) it comes to ~$4T of principal that we are (over) paying interest on. The excess interest on the whole mess that is referred to as the “Federal Pension Obligations” comes to a very important $100+ billion. Every Year!
I’m not sure what to make of this. Clearly society is providing a significant ON BUDGET subsidy to these programs (this alone is 7% of the deficit). At a time when everything else is getting ReFi-ed at lower rates (and savers are getting creamed on their holdings) there should be a discussion of the biggest ReFi of them all, the federal Trust Funds.
.
»
- advertisements -
You make good points, and from time to time you'll have to repeat them. This is not really a reasoned discussion. The other side believes if they keep repeating the same bogus meme over and over that they'll convince people to give up something they have earned.
Which part did you object to? That the people earned SS or that you have no argument?
I too am an old fart and I have never looked at SS as an entitlement. You are forced to pay into the system. Once you hit the correct age to draw SS you draw SS. I am so sick of the way they treat the elderly. Like we are some kind of fucking disease, even though we paid all of our lives. I know and I hate to state this, they are going to cut the SS back and increase the age you retire. Sucks when you work all your life only to be screwed once again when your old. Watch what comes out of this so called unconstitutional super congressional panel.
Don't take it personally, but you and your generation are more responsible for the clusterfuck that is Social Security than my 4 year old son. He is not responsible for keeping any of us living in the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.
I understand that your generation is feeling screwed and threatened by having paid into the system "for years" and finding the benefits will likely be dramatically devalued. I'm not happy about pissing away the SS taxes I continue to pay.
We have done it to ourselves by tolerating a regime of profligacy, debt and fiat money for the last several decades. "They", as in government or some amorphous group of others, aren't responsible. My kids won't be responsible when they resist shouldering the burden. I will admire them when they throw off this tyrannical and failed philosophy of entitlement.
Fend for yourself and expect nothing.
Do you really think that your children will not tolerate a regime of profligacy? Why did you?
Because I will teach them not to. Unfortunately I didn't know better myself until a few years ago.
Under the current system your 4 year old son will be paid in full. After the boomers depart SS is solvent. The only risk is that guys like you will allow politicians to scuttle the system. Give your kid a break and keep the wastrels from destroying the only government program worth anything.
social security is the reason why illegal mexicans are allowed to work.
Be happy at what you do get back, it will be a heck of a lot more than the younger workers will get. What they have to look forward to after paying into the system for 60 plus years is a SS system that will only begin to pay them back after they reach 85 oh and they also need to be living under a bridge as well.
So for all those who say only the rich pay income tax, what about the 15% flat tax earned on dollar one? because that is what SS is for younger workers, just a tax with no hope of benefits ever. In the end SS will just be turned into a welfare program only for people too old to work yet too poor to survive without meager assistance. We all need to drop all notions that the government (i.e. taxpayers and voters not yet born) will take care of you in your old age.
Not so long ago we had a natural “social security system” called raising productive kids, that seemed to work just fine. Seems to me that if more parents understood that the combination of self accumulated wealth and/or good kids were the keys to a happy retirement, a better society would emerge.
SS was included in with savings and support from children. All these pieces are in people's plans
After the baby boomers downsize into urns SS is solvent. Bruce won't mention that.
Actually I think I have mentioned that. The problem with the boomers is that there wont be anything left when they are in those urns.
The boomers will have sucked the life out of the system.
The boomers have just started to retire. They haven't sucked the life out of anything, yet. Give it a few years before you go around waving your arms and yelling "the sky is falling".
I hear ya. I wish "they" felt the same way about all other public pension/entitlements as "they" do about SS. Why should teachers yell any louder if "we" suggested that we needed to push out their receipt of pension by 5 years? It seems to be no problem for SS. Lets be fair. Aren't we being a little "entitlement-ist" here? I realize some pigs are more equal than others.....
My point is they are all broken systems. We attack SS only because it is nameless, faceless and harbors no emotional attachment. I have spent 25 years paying max into the system and I would be thrilled if I could cash out today 30 cents on the dollar.
"I would be thrilled if I could cash out today 30 cents on the dollar."
Even with an adverse scenario the system will pay out a much higher precentage (>75%), so relax. However I do understand the urge to put your own hands on the money today.
you are assuming that the system stays in tact that long. I run all this through my head and it is a game of chicken on when the dollar will implode. At that moment of implosion the 30 cents on the dollar now will look like genius.
Why is gold behaving like it is? It is not just crazy Americans buying it. Crisis don't just happen, there are glaring warning signs, and I believe gold is screaming at us all.
If you think about the systemic issues we have and the conflicts that exist to resolve them the only solution is total crisis and the thread weaving all systems together is the dollar. When that thread breaks it will be power-on-reset. It is the only logical conclusion. We cannot self-heal.
If the dollar implodes then the dollar implodes. Government assets will still remain. I'll take 40 acres and a mule, and then we can still be friends.
'[The trust fund] will have an investment average maturity of 7 years. The rate of interest paid to SS is currently 4.25%.'
An average maturity of 7 years means there's some longer-maturity Treasuries (10, 15 year, etc.) in the mix. Yields averaged north of 4% during the middle of the past decade, and were closer to 6% in the 1990s, so a 4.25% average seems reasonable.
The trust fund may be a paper exercise, but if they're taking on longer maturity debt, I think they're legitimately entitled to the yield the strategy produces ... just as they would be if they were accumulating Treasuries on the open market. The yield to maturity on those doesn't get 'marked to market.' It's baked in the cake at the time of purchase.
That said, average yields will inexorably fall as the Trust Fund rolls over maturing debt at today's low yields.
#average yields will inexorably fall as the Trust Fund rolls over maturing debt at today's #low yields.
sorry pal, yields wont fall..
ITS PONZI SCHEME.. for years all surpluses were spent.. instead of money there were issued 'SPECIAL , NO TRADABLE' bonds/notes /etc.. its not even real bonds , its just a piece of paper w/ nominal/issued_date/coupon_rate %
BUT MOST OUTRAGEOUS THING IS THAT NOT ONLY GOVERMENT SETS coupon_rate as big as it wants, BUT ALSO GOVERMENT DOUBLE COUNTING THOSE PAPER GAINS TOO AND SPENT IT TOO.... thats why exist so much disperancy bettween daily/monthly treasury statements.
ask Bruce, he knows this stuff better..
alx
I don't care what the government invested the money in. If they didn't earn the projected return or lost some of the principal and won't pay in full, then they have defaulted. Fortunately they have lots of assets that can be attached e.g. grazing rights, mineral rights, tolls on bridges to nowhere, etc. So a quick receivership proceeding and everything is AOK.
How much could they get for one nuke at an auction in which both the Iranians and the Israelis were bidding?
Interesting.
Who's court will you file your lawsuit in?
Where is your written, signed, enforcible contract with the SSA?
Who will actually "put" the US Treasury in receivership, the "Super Double Secret US Treasury"? ... the UN? ... Canada?
Where did the Germans, or Argentinians, or the Yugoslavians file their lawsuits to get their purchasing power back when their governments "defaulted".
Come back to Earth.
If the rules for default by the US government do not currently exist, then they'll have to be written. There are plenty of templates to use. As for other countries, I view them as a pretty good example of what not to do. The assets are there. And this isn't the first time this has been raised. Forty acres and a mule, anyone?
BTW I found your baiting me with the UN to be amusing. Let me respond in kind: are you some kind of neo-con slug?
Bruce--as usual right on target--and I'm an old fart. You are quickly becoming something of a flame in the sky. As Lisa (Leslie Caron) commented to Jerry (Gene Kelly in "American in Paris @ 1951) you are no longer a problem--you are becoming a nusianse (sp). From living in NYC, Chicago and L.A among other places, that is usually a tag that gets attached to ones' toe. Milestones
hi bruce,
nice artcile .. well i guess all those figures are jsut estimates
data is not updated yet , see http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/tsOps.html
nothing from 2011 feb
COULD YOU POST YOUR LINK to report ?
thanks
alx
The links don't work as they should. To find this data go to SSA. Then FAQ. Then office of actuary. then trust fund data. Then link to benefits then make sure it is set for 2011.
Take the same road to the last step where there is a link to employment taxes.
I tried to post a screen save of the results. No luck (I'm a luddite with HTML).
Send me an email and I will send you the pics.
bkrasting@gmail.com
Again, I would ask what anyone would consider doing about this? It is a temporary situation that will pass as quickly as the Boomers. If you do the math, most people will die long before receiving the monetary equivalent of what they have paid into the system.
After paying into this "Ponzi Scheme" (as some seem determined to represent it) for over 40 years, will my "entitlement" to take what I have paid for in advance all these years simply go away? It will be "too burdensome" for this new generation to pay me back for that which I have already paid?
There are no answers, just more blame-throwing and generational insults and turning the word "entitled" into a rude parody of its real meaning.
I am entitled because I paid the price. I wasn't given a choice in the matter, either.
Let those who are responsible for the math and the solvency of the program solve this temporary problem of "too many retirees" - naturally, without ever addressing the fact that those "too many retirees" also poured too much money into the system over their working lives.
Now, when it comes time for the payback, you're gonna try and renege on the deal? Why, that could be called "extortion" of an entire generation then, couldn't it? But who cares, we'll be too old too defend ourselves! Easy pickin's.
"I am entitled because I paid the price. I wasn't given a choice in the matter, either."
This is why we are going to hell. 50 years of expanding bureaucracy, massive overspending, diminished freedom and generally awful governance and you are shocked and outraged to find that commitments will not be kept.
Make sure and direct that outrage in the proper direction - namely inward and toward D.C. - not at my kids who will finally learn self reliance and dodge shouldering the "needs" of others.
you sound exactly like the Madoff investors who got burned.
Yes Madoff promised you 10% annual returns.
No there were no actual (real) returns.
Yes you paid in your $6k a year in taxes.
No that does not entitle you to take out $18k a year in benefits.
Just because you voted for some politician who said he will place an obligation of $18k for every $6k you pay in, onto some unborn voter, is exactly what makes it a ponzi scheme and an 'entitlement'. You are demanding you get paid your $18k, because you paid in your $6k.
THE MATH DOESN'T WORK, not matter what any politician promised you.
Even if the current SS fund could pay all existing retirees, it wouldn't then also be able to pay for the current generation who retire in 30-40 years time. It has to wait for THEIR children to pay, and so on.
That's exactly a ponzi scheme, always requiring new investors to pay out old investors.
The difference between the $6k you put in and the $18k you take out, in real terms, is taken from your children. In nominal terms they can do it via debasement of the dollar (i.e. your children's wage won't buy them as much as it bought you) or they will do it via direct taxaton (your children will have less of their wage to spend than you did)
Your math is the math that does not work, people pay in almost 16% on payroll deduction. Some say that is wrong because employers kick in a matching amount, but where do you think employers get the matching amount? It comes out of what you would otherwise have earned. That 16% paid in over an average of 46 years working life at even 4% average interest only has to cover an average of 11 years retirement which with interest not only should be enough it should run a surplus.
I would agree with the statement above that ALL else is on the chopping block before SS with the exception of veteran benefits which should not be greater than but equal to SS because without us you would not have SS or anything else. That is not to say that as a government program the VA cannot find fat to trim. They all have some fat to trim, except maybe national parks, there is a totally underfunded part of government, and such a shame too, these national parks are our crown jewels (after our people that is).
LOL. The number of retirees has been known with virtual certainty for decades. So the "too many retirees" argument doesn't not hold water. The money and assets are there. If you don't demand payment, however, you won't get it.
Sorry, you won't get it anyway, demand or not; that's the substance of Bruce's article.
Money going out >>> money coming in. Eventually there's no money left.
Yes, you COULD print more money to pay the benefits with. However, without a corresponding increase in WEALTH to back it, you just get Weimar deutchemarks or Zimbabwe dollars; worthless.
Bruce even points out the crippling load problem; SS is 7% of the deficit problem. SS can be saved, if you cap it, devote whatever-it-takes resources (increase taxes tremendously) and set it as the highest priority. But raising taxes enough to fund ALL the promises (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, military, transfer payments for food / housing / various other) would bankrupt EVERYBODY; there simply isn't enough WEALTH in the world to support all these promises.
The "assets" in the SS trust fund are special Treasury IOUs that cannot be sold to anyone except the Treasury, and would be redeemed by SS payroll taxes until exhausted, then general revenues. So many people are now unemployed that payroll revenues are decreasing, aggravating the problem.
If the US does not change policies enough to grow the economy, it will go bankrupt like Greece; people will refuse to lend us money to pay our bills. Once that happens, what will those special Treasury IOUs be worth?
Demand anything you want; math does not lie (per Twain, figures don't lie, although liars figure!). Consider me a liar, fool or partisan hack, I don't care; just tell me where you will collect the WEALTH to pay off these promises.
Thanks.
Piece of cake! Just cut military expenditures by 75% and the double and triple dipping military brass pensions by 100%.
America would still have the largest military on a per capita basis.
Two things.
1. Everything else is on the choppong block before SS.
2. Any shortfall after that comes out of government assets. I'll settle for 40 acres of arable land and a mule.
Deal?
For many people, the empty moral heart of the matter seems to be "We've been telling you for the last 30 years that we're gonna rip you off--you should have taken us seriously, dumb asses! Blame yourselves."
Sorry, but I'm gonna blame the people who ended up with the money. And their sycophantic foot soldiers/enablers.
"The higher 2011 payout is exclusively the result of more retiring workers becoming eligible for benefits."
Not really, Workers are eligible to retire at any age from 62 on up. What has happened is that a huge number of people have lost their jobs and can't get another one--so they are taking their social security benefits earlier than they did before. But these workers are getting lower payment than if they waited--so the long run negative effects are not as strong as the OP suggests.
At the same time, the older, lower benefit recipients are dropping of the back end, i.e. dying, while the younger, higher benefit (due to the effects of wage inflation on the benefit calculations) recipients are being added.
I would guess that that is the more significant effect.
Also, the lower revenue is greatly to be blamed on ZIRP since projections of net value were based on higher interest income, so ZIRP has the (un?) intended consequence of gobbling up ever more SS dollars. It is just one of the ways we are defaulting on our single largest creditor, our elderly and infirm. Dandy say the wealthy, I will just stick Mama in a home and let some underpaid orderly change her diapers. Be afraid of the rich, if they get their way we will be working for less than a minimum wage since that will have been abolished, we will be taxed at a rate that is higher than they pay, and the moment you fail to be productive enough to support yourself and them they will send you to a concentration camp for "transport to the east."
I would like to know how much the salary cap would need to be raised to bring break even. I would prefer this approach to one which cuts benefits.
Of course, I don't expect a rational revenue based solution from someone who considers SS a drain on society.
Bruce I agree. Cash flow is all that counts.
Can you tell me how did they come up with $46.9B of green paper to pay out all 2011 benefits? Did SS Trust Fund cash in that amount of IOUs? Was it Treasury that gave them the actual green paper to pay the beneficiaries?
If so, the Plunge Protection Team does a good job of hiding this fact in the annual budget results and projections.
Too bad sheeple don't have a clue that SS is NOT running a surplus as the propaganda outlets claim. I can't get anyone to believe it. Brainwashing is hard to undo.
I think where the "brainwashed sheeple" have trouble is in understanding why a program that has bought and paid for over $2 Trillion in Treasury debt can be honestly termed "bankrupt," as so many "anti-entitlements" idiologues so knowingly proclaim.
Here we have another example in Bruce, who--like all the rest of them--doesn't address the fundamental issue of the matter: When you, I, or the Treasury has to pay a debt, of course we then have less cash.
This is the same situation the Treasury faces with any mature securitized debt. Being the great Debtor Nation we are, Treasury always rolls the debt into new securities in order to avoid that cash balance/cash flow problem.
Implicit in most of the arguments that SS is either insolvent or "bankrupting us" is the belief that debt owed to the common man is an affront to all that is right and just . . . that the SSTF and its stakeholders are undeserving of the same treatment afforded other "investors."
Needless to say, those who would--from a financial, though hardly moral, perspective--most benefit from writing down this legitimate debt are the people who don't and won't need to depend on the money to live (the upper middle class and above) and would prefer that their government not look to them as a source of revenue by which to pay those legitimate debts.
That this easy yet fiercely proud sociopathy is tolerated when its arguments are so patently ridiculous demonstrates the strength of the vested interests making them. Given the level of morality exhibited by the finance community as a whole, it should be no surprise, I suppose, that they--regardless of their very real ability to actually understand the rudimentary accounting and finance involved--are the primary propagandists for what is in essence just another evolving mega-heist.
It would be nice to see people arguing the matter in good faith, but that doesn't seem to be on the menu at Chez Finance.
Bottom line is that if you think we've honestly exceeded our capacity to repay our debts and that, consequently, it's time for AUSTERITY for SS stakeholders, you should be using the right word: Default.
Failure to do so reveals nothing beyond a bizarre desire to write off debt owed to and depended upon by only the most needy, imo.
Unless, of course, you're calling for a full US Treasury default. But that is almost never part of the script for these "earnestly realistic" foes of SS.
"...people who don't and won't need to depend on the money to live (the upper middle class and above) and would prefer that their government not look to them as a source of revenue by which to pay those legitimate debts..."
I Could not have said it better Bob, and given my opinion of my ability to express an opinion that is saying something.
:)
But I did just want to emphasize your above in bold and remind everyone that that same class who so mentally hate paying a fair share also would never consent to a fair share in this matter, that was why the only way to get the program authorized in the first place was via the income caps subject to taxes. First of all those in that broad higher income group have as a base for their wealth and income unearned financial gains which are taxed at 15% rather than the normal 35% for income gained through work. Sad that work and productivity is punished like that yes? While the ownership class is taxed at less than half that. More important is that had there never been any cap the system would still be and remain solvent. Funny how the Reich-wingnuts and teabaggers all claim to think a flat tax is a good thing unless that means the rich will have to pay as much as the poor. But then they believe that because they think it would lower all taxes and force government to live within those new lower means, in fact the first thing that would happen would be the taxes paid by the wealthy would go up and be equal to what the poor and former middle class have to pay. Sign me up for that.
As to the sociologic implications we are dealing with people who pathologically refuse to understand that culture, civilizations, and just flat out survival depend upon our ability to work together and share, but they refuse willingly or otherwise to acknowledge that what government spend benefits them more than it does you or me, because all of that fat wealth and all of that out of proportion income would be impossible without the private property rights protections and infrastructure the government provides. If there is entitlement they whine that is money stolen from them, because they refuse to see that without entitlements in a nation where the economic scales are tilted vastly in their favor the mobs would be burning them at the stake. We collectively own this continent and everything that it gives us, to think millions will do without the minimum needed to survive just so some fat bitch can own excessive wealth is a fairytale dream that will for them have a rude awaking.
This is not about debt, nor solvency, it is about the greed of those that refused over decades to pay a fair share and now that it has to be paid with interest guess who is squirming and howling? Too fucking bad, time to pay the piper and the piper will be paid, by those that have something to pay. Whine and bitch if it helps, but it will be done.
The piper is being paid as we speak. The debt to SS recipients, as well as all the other entitlement recipients, is being monetized by the Fed and the savers that are receiving negative interest rates on their savings in this inflationary environment are paying for that monetization. This will continue for the forseeable future, likely at an exponentially increasing rate until the system collapses completely.
This is not about debt, nor solvency, it is about the greed of those that refused over decades to pay a fair share
That would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Do you have an original thought or do you just spout slogans? Who do you think has been paying most of the taxes over the years?
The problem with Social Security is that like most Ponzi's, the later entrants never get the benefits promised, but it was their money which funded the early entrants. When you have to print, tax, or borrow in order to fund today's expenditures, I'd say you have no money of your own. The govt took the taxes collected (they were NOT insurance premiums) and spent them on a number of different programs. You probably even voted for some of those programs.
Now the money is gone. But hey, we can borrow more, roll over the credit card debt to a new card and all is well. Other taxpayers down the road can pay the bill, maybe even your children or your grandchildren, it won't be our problem, it can be theirs! What a country!
Why would grandma be thrown out on the street? Where are her children or her grandkids? But no, I guess you like the power rush that comes from holding a gun to other people's heads while you reach into their wallets for stuff you want.
Sorry, your fantasy of being a more moral, ethical nice person rests on the violence of coercion into funding programs you think are important. Some of us disagree with you, it doesn't make us greedy or mean.
Speak for yourself if you would enjoy the loss of dignity and independence you worked for your whole life, that is fine, I have no family. I only have the reliance of the words of those promises made my entire working life, and I will get it, trust me on that.
As to the following generations who will have to pay a disproportionate share of income to support those elderly and infirm now, it is hard to feel sorry for them when they will be the same ones inheriting the estates of the larger baby boom generation when they eventually do die off. Not in the form of some inflated fiat currency either, but the actual tangible estates, cars, houses, art and antiques, etc. They will be more than justly compensated for their moments of pinching paycheck bite we older people have to rely on them for temporarily. After all my generation has paid willingly enough for it's elderly, and I refuse to spend my life moaning about how my grandmother whom I so loved robbed me of money I could have spent on a neat jet ski, or a better car.
I am ashamed to be of the same species as some of the posters on this topic.
You are totally delusional! If the baby boomers had "actual tangible estates, cars, houses, art and antiques" they wouldn't have to work till death like they are now!
Younger people don't even have jobs for you to tax them.
The fact that I have to even have this conversation reminds me of how we got into this mess in the first place: A bunch of fucking morons who don't understand the exponential function yet are allowed to vote for politicians who promise them free shit.
Then there are the morons who knowingly invoke The Exponential Function. WTF are you talking about, exactly?
The most common pose wrt SS is this big-balled finance animal pose.
Lay it out, wise guy: The Exponential Function.
What makes this uniquely relevant to SS?
OT - Solyndra. Bruce, saw your piece on Solyndra the other day - nice work. Are you familiar with the US PACER SYSTEM? Now that Solyndra is in BK, it may as well be a public company because almost every last detail of its business will be recorded in the public record, accessible via PACER. (you need an account and passwords)
I just checked the Pacer case locator, either Solyndra has not actually filed, may happen today, or they've filed under a subs name to make the case harder to find. If you've never followed a bankruptcy case in detail using Pacer - it will blow your mind how much info becomes available.
Solyndra is very much on topic. This government has $ billions to piss away on hair-brained schemes, but granny has to starve? LOL.
No way, amigos.