Guest Post: The Lie That Is Social Security

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Lance Robert of StreetTalk Advisors

The Lie That Is Social Security

The problems facing the U.S. economy are daunting especially when it comes the issues of Government spending and the current deficit. We recently wrote about the dependency on Government programs which is currently making up as much as 35% of personal incomes. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare make up the largest portions of the current spending requirements of the Federal Budget. The current administration has promised that cuts will not be made to government "entitlement" programs but is that a promise that any administration can actually keep?

When it comes to Social Security the facts are rather alarming. By 2017 the Social Security Administration will pay out more in benefits than it takes in. This is not surprising given that in the 1950's there were roughly 5 workers for every retiree. Today, it is roughly half of that. With 78 Million "baby boomers" moving into retirement the demands on social security are set to spiral higher in the coming years ahead. Is it really any wonder then that with demographics heading in the wrong direction, not to mention a much slower growth economy, that the Social Security Administration has moved up its estimate that the Social Security Fund will be exhausted entirely by 2033?

With these rather stark points in mind it was much to my dismay that Smart Money published an article by Alicia Munnell entitled "Social Security: The Cheapest Annuity In Town" which stated: "The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College has just released a new study that shows that the best way for people to turn their 401(k) balances into a stream of income is to 'buy' an annuity from Social Security. Many people don't recognize that Social Security is in the annuity business, but it is and it has the cheapest product in town."

The premise is that as individuals approach retirement they should use 401k and IRA asset's first to live on and postpone drawing Social Security for as long as possible. ?She states: "A much better alternative is for the household to 'buy' an annuity from Social Security. They can make this 'purchase' by using their savings to pay current expenses and delaying claiming to get a higher monthly benefit at an older age. The savings used is the 'price' and the increase in monthly benefits is the annuity it 'buys.'"

This sounds great on the surface. She uses the following example: "Consider a retiree who could claim $12,000 a year at age 65 and $12,860 at age 66 - $860 more. If he delays claiming for a year and uses $12,860 from savings to pay the bills that year, $12,860 is the price of the extra $860 annuity income. The annuity rate - the additional annuity income as a percent of the purchase price - would be 6.7 percent ($860/$12,860). Remember that Social Security benefits are indexed for inflation, so the retiree is buying a real annuity."

The proverbial "fly in the ointment" was brought forth by Jim Horney at the Center on Budget Priorities where in an USA Today article he exposed the lie that is Social Security: "It's not easy, but it can be done. Retirement programs are not legal obligations." Read that last sentence again. While we have all been led to believe that there is some "lock box" in Washington that are safeguarding the semimonthly payments that are drafted from our paychecks — the reality is that this is simply not the case. This is why Mr. Horney stated that Social Security should not count as part of the deficit because, unlike businesses, the Government can change what it owes by lifting taxes and cutting benefits.

Therein lays the problem with Ms. Munnell's article. The "cheapest annuity in town" may also be the worst possible investment. Why? Because the money you pay into Social Security is not yours. Politicians can confiscate those dollars at their discretion such as when the Clinton Administration used the dollars from Social Security to balance the budget. They can raise the retirement age thereby shortening the number of dollars that must be paid out. Moreover, as we have seen over the past decade, they can eviscerate their obligations by debasing the dollar. In other words, by spending your saved retirement dollars today, which could be invested in assets that will produce an income stream in the future, in the hopes of a better "annuity" stream in the future there could likely be very negative ramifications. This is especially the case when you consider that the average American is woefully under-saved for retirement and two nasty bear markets during this century alone has all but insured that many Americans will be working far longer than they originally planned.

Combine those issues with the reality that eventually the government will have to take steps to begin to deal with the problem that is Social Security.  While there has been much discussion of the issue of cutting the deficits, reducing spending and raising revenue to return to a path of prosperity — the simple fact is that nothing can be accomplished without attacking the 800-lb guerrilla that is entitlement spending.

federal-balance-sheet-in-2011My friend Doug Short wrote an excellent commentary on this very issue which is worth reviewing in the context of this article. The simple fact is that while "By law, the federal government can't tell the truth," according to Sheila Weinberg of the Chicago-based Institute for Truth in Accounting, the "math" doesn't lie. The entitlement programs alone consume more than the entire tax revenue for the year which is why the current Federal Debt levels have now surpassed 100% of GDP.

The trend is clearly unsustainable and something will have to ultimately give. While Ms. Munnell believes that Social Security annuities are a better deal than those in the private market the major difference is that the government has no "legal" responsibility to pay what is currently owed. In the coming years the currently under-saved and aging "boomer" population may be faced with the tough decisions of working longer and reducing their standard of living. For those that are currently working and paying into the system — the best advice still remains to save more, spend less and be self reliant for your retirement because the truth is that "social safety" net may just turn out to be a big fat lie. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Seasmoke's picture

now that could cause a dangerous situation

Hard1's picture

The lie that is Social Security,  The lie that is the treasury, the lie that is the FED, the lie that is .....  Still, the market sneezes and everyone wants treasuries.  At 0% I'm sure that the US will at least make the interest payments!

Clint Liquor's picture

If everyone wants treasuries why does the FED have to buy them. Would the 10Y be 1.5% without the FED?

CPL's picture

The old, if someone threw a big booze filled party and no one came.  Does that make it a failed party or an alcoholic making an excuse to drink?


I'm hesistant to say there was a FED party and more like pigs licking the last of the sugar from the bowl.

Cadavre's picture

Social security is solvent. Social security does not contribute to the deficit. social security is not an entitlement, it is a trust fund. The 2.1 Trillion (booked) principal "borrowed" by the congress with special, 4.5%,  non marketable Treasuries + the promised coupon payments, does not represent a failure of SS to meet it's obligations. Congress has failed (again - and never surprised). Can't remember the last time the US pretended to operate under a budget - those magical "continuing resolutions" just keep on continuing on for ever, SS does not contribute to deficit. It runs a surplus. Congress snatched 69 Billion in 2010, and over a hundred billion in 2011.

And these zero twit K-Street putas wanted to use SS for a really really super big equity balloon pump couple years back.

And now they run down the only constitutionally authorized (by the founders, no less) brick and mortar government service, the post office and is sending bunches of them pink slips to trim, what amounts to 1 week fuel expense for [just] marines in Afghanistan, from the postal service budget. Lately, some congressional panelists are rolling the drums and stasrting to hint and laud the benefits of replacing the post office with fed ex. guessing FED EX has some very useful photos of hot and heavy hat room frolic with a page or an alter boy de juer.

And that's the way things usually get done in DC.

If ya think about it, the postman is the only representative of the US gov most of us interact with on almost a daily basis. The postman is the only tangible evidence that there may still be a functioning "united states". allegorically speaking, the postman binds the commons together.

The problem is not social security. the problem is not our government employees. the problem is us, the employers of our government employees. we been so busy  wearing ourselves out tugging the dragon , we've set aside our responsibilities. it's not because we made a conscientious decision to be, or "were" born weak and apathetic pussies, our employees had the benefit of the latest new and improved high tech Gooerbbelesque carrots. we bit. and we sucked like favor returned when a dime bag is offered to a 42ed street whore. we knew what they were doing when we allowed them to call us (their employers) "consumers". we let it pass. we were induced to become dragon tugging addicts. we deluded ourselves that it would fix itself - self regulate - that pressing a button on a voting machine really means anything more than missing another chance to flog the bling "lizard" or that the pressed button is even really tallied to anything other than our personal citizen pretense score card - wait ... hold on ... almost .. golley lolley miss molley, just one more stroke and this shot of dragon snop is just for you.

save the whales pro-life - pro-choice - africanized bees - raw milk - screw israel - love israel - global warming - global warming hoax - bin did,  bin didn't - red pill - blue bill with us or against us - ad infinitum. The big question is why have we segregated ourselves into so many litlle useless powelerless mainingless demographic comfort zone "mounds". when we were "one mound", even g*d wouldn't dare to f*ck with us. this sh*t will get fixed when we accept we are a one mound hive. that thw important things - like the begets upon begets after we've fed the worms,  will have access toevery aspect of the "magic" of life and still be solid custustodians of humanity- is why we need to focus on exactly what it means to be an American.

oldman's picture


Well said.

It appears that you are preaching a great sermon to the blind, deaf, and dumb, though. There is a definiter lack of thoughtfulness here tonight---actually, it gets worse every night.

Who are these people and where do they come from?

Thanks for your righteous frustration and anger

It is 'us' and not 'them'

SOLIDARITY is still a word without a home in the US


francis_sawyer's picture

 "We're America!... We're 10-1"!

vh070's picture

Nonthinking; blindfaith; conditionedstupidity — all single words in my dict.

Helix6's picture

Ummmm... actually, I buy treasuries through variuos funds...

TimmyB's picture

No kidding.  It's a lie to claim Social Security is a lie.  Here's a clue to tell when somone is lying about Social Security: they conflate Medicade and Medicare with Social Security to support their argument.  Here, the author brings in both Medicade and Medicare, along with the deficit, when Social Security hasn't contributed a single dime to the deficit. 

I also enjoy the author's horror when he tells us all that Social Security will be paying out more than it collects in the future.  That was the plan all along.  Reagan changed the program from being pay as you go to having current workers pay more than is spent so there would be a SS trust fund for when baby boomers started to retire. 

Finally, "the government could change the law at anytime" argument is silly.  Here's another clue for the author--the government could change any law at any time.  It could triple your taxes, it could make fish the national currency, it could do just about anything.  Here, the operative word here is "could."  Could doesn't mean likely.  Flying saucers could land on the White House lawn, but I don't think its likely. 





Spacemoose's picture

because it seems self evident to me, i'm going to assume that you and your up arrowers would agree that:

1. government cannot redistribute wealth that society fails to produce and

2. government can only provide goods and services to one group of citizens if it takes surplus wealth from another group of citizens (or borrows wealth from the citizens of another country to be repaid with the surplus economic production of future generations).

based on the tenor of your argument it seems that you believe that government can meet its future obligations by cutting certain spending programs and by taking a greater share of the surplus economic production of those workers who are generating a surplus now and (in the case of borrowing) from those workers who will generate an economic surplus in the future. 

clearly you don't believe that merely by printing money, goods and services spring into existence.   also, i'm certain you would agree that for the health of the economy and future job creation, a certain amount of the country's surplus economic production must be invested (in factories for instance) rather than directed towards pure consumption (as would be the case with most ss checks). 

unfortunately, the sad fact is that regardless of the defense budget, or of interest rates, or of deficits, the obligations coming due in the future simply exceed the productive capacity of the nation.  our problem is a productivity problem.  there is a maximum amount of wealth (goods and services) we are capable of producing and meeting our promised (and soon to be defaulted on) obligations requires productivity in excess of this amount.  when thinking of productivity keep in mind that 40% of the "productive" workers in this country work either in the FIRE sector or for government.  i would be hard pressed to conclude that they are producing goods and services with a value in excess of the value of the goods and services they consume.  we are so doomed ...     






Matt's picture

TimmyB made three points:

1) it is disingenous to talk about a specific program, then start combining the costs of that program with other programs to make them seem like one program

2) Social Security was intended to take out more than it puts in, once the Boomer Wave peaks

3) Government COULD change Social Security, but that government could change any laws anyways, so worrying about hypothetical future laws is a waste of energy.


Personally, I am not familiar enough with the structure of SS and the Reagan Administrations changes to have an opinion on #2. I agree with the principles of #1 and #3.

Nothing in your post has anything to do with any of these three points.

Spacemoose's picture

so your position is that, as TimmyB said, it is a lie that social security is a lie because of the three points you have reiterated?  my friend john the greek used to say that there are three irrefutable replies to any argument: "so what, who cares, and big deal".  those replies apply in spades to TimmyB's three points because in the real world, ss benefits are not going to be paid as promised.  do you seriously disagree with that point?  really? REALLY?   do you actually think that TimmyB's three points have any impact whatsoever on the likelyhood of ss being paid in the future? 

do you think that the fact that "Government COULD change Social Security, but that government could change any laws anyways, so worrying about hypothetical future laws is a waste of energy" has more of an impact on whether or not ss benefits are paid than does medicare obligations?  i know you don't.  

perhaps you have a different interpretation of what is meant by "ss is a lie". my point, is that ss is a lie because, in the real world as we know it (and not in some imaginary world where "intent" has some magical effect on funding), it is going to be impossible for government to make good on its obligations.  now i would agree that it might be an interesting intellectual exercise to separate ss out of the equation and treat it as a free standing program free and clear of any outside pressures imposed by other funding requirements.  but you and i both know that is not realistic.  in the real world, ss benefits will be cut, either by inflation or by legislation, but they will be cut.    




TimmyB's picture

What evidence do you have that Social Security will not be paid as promised, especially when it has been paid as promised since the 1930s? 



FMR Bankster's picture

OK Timmy I'll bite. I'm 56 and my benefits have been increased in my lifetime (1969 and 1971) and decreased in my lifetime.(1983 with the social security reform)In addition, my social security taxes have been increased (over and over again as a result of the 1983 overhaul) and decreased the last two years. This system is nothing but a tax. They tax you now and pay you welfare later. And how they tax you and what they will pay you is nothing but politics.

TimmyB's picture

I don't see it the same way you do.  Your future SS retirement benifits increased as you earned more and worked longer.  Each year you pay in entitles you to a larger check.  The more you pay in every year, up to the cap, the larger check you get at retirement. 

I do agree its a tax.  You can call it welfare if you want, but because its based upon how much you paid in every year and how many years you paid into the system, I can't agree. 

I can't dispute that politics is involved.  Everything the government does comes down to politics.         

If you were trying to make a larger point, then I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.  









mrdenis's picture

The simple reason it increases the longer you work ,or the longer you delay taking SS is your life span is decreasing as well .....or it's supposed to anyway 

A Nanny Moose's picture

About minus 15.7 Trillion reasons. How's that investing disclaimer go???? Past performance is no indication of future returns?

Goverment however is pretty reliable in its application of force when Other Peoples' Money runs out. Beneficiaries will be the first to feel the pinch.

Crisismode's picture

You are so full of shit it is beyond belief.


Go away and leave us alone.



StychoKiller's picture

"But, but...I paid into that fund!  They owe me!"

[Quote from a Bernie Madoff Investor, or Social Security Recipient, take yer pick!]

TimmyB's picture

This is 2012, not 1950.  Thus, the surplus produced by workers doesn't go to workers.  Instead, it goes into the pockets of factory owners.  This ties in to your other point about the need to invest in manufacturing.  Well, since the owners of this counrtry decided to invest in manufacturing by placing factories outside the U.S., I would rather the surplus produced by Chineses peasents go to our government's coffers, instead of remaining in the hands of factory owners.  

I do find the claim that SS checks are pure consumption to be interesting.  Are you claiming we should let seniors who paid into the SS system their entire working lives starve because they consume, while on the other hand we should be investing SS money on factories?  Sorry, but I disagree.

Finally if everyone pays into Social sEcurity and everyone is entitled to a Social Security check when they retire, exactly what group is paying for another group?  Didn't the group currently getting checks already contribute to the system?   


TimmyB's picture

comment deleted by author


Lednbrass's picture

They contributed, but only a fraction of what they will receive.  The closer they were to the start of the Ponzi, they bigger the payout.

Yes the group now getting checks contributed- but the govenment spent the excess money on other things. They bought a huge military and massive social spending with the money and those contributing paid no attention, and unfortunately what those now retired and those going to retire expect and what those behind them will be able to pay are miles apart. The reality is that their lives were a party fueled by borrowing vast sums on top of the terrible misallocation and waste of what they did pay into the system, and they expect their kids and grandkids to pay the bar tab and make up the difference.

We went from 16 workers per retiree in the 50's to about 3 now and it will be down to 2 next decade.

Take a look at what comes back based on income and when people retired. Huge win for the early entrants, diminishing returns after that-


StychoKiller's picture

Cm'on, can't you find just one more layer of suckers for the pyramid, please?

Matt's picture

"They contributed, but only a fraction of what they will receive.  The closer they were to the start of the Ponzi, they bigger the payout."

This here is the big problem I have with anything a Government calls "insurance". They don't charge enough and they pay out too much. I've been told (not verified) that school teachers around here are eligbile to collect unemployment benefits during the summer months.

I've looked through 7 years of my pay stubs from my previous job, and found I paid in something like $2000 in 7 years, if I had taken unemployment for a year, I would take out 10 to 15 times as much as I had paid in.

This seems to apply to housing and mortgage insurance, pensions, deposit insurance, and any other system created by government. Definitly not ran to the same standards as a for-profit company that has to actually balance the books and generate a return.

Disenchanted's picture

"and found I paid in something like $2000 in 7 years"


something people never seem to think about or remember is that your employers also matched that $4000 was paid in on your behalf in 7 years.


Payroll taxes are the state and federal taxes that you, as an employer, are required to withhold and/or to pay on behalf of your employees. You are required to withhold state and federal income taxes as well as social security and Medicare taxes from your employees' wages. You are also required to pay a matching amount of social security and Medicare taxes for your employees and to pay State and Federal unemployment tax.




I'm 53 in two weeks, I had the first SS deductions from my paycheck to SS in 1973...per the last SS statement I received in March 2011:


Over the years I have paid in $82,592 and my employers have paid $82,592 on my behalf, total $165,184.


I have also paid in $19,605 to Medicare and my employers have also matched that amount, total  $39,210.


Grand total  $204,394


Multiply me times millions of working Americans and those monies that should have been earning some sort of interest over the years...WTF have they done with the money?


They've blown it and are now blaming us for their fuckups. Same ol shit different day.


But hey we've got cool toys(weapons) and a very healthy corporate MIC to 'fight for our freedoms' and 'good friends' like Israel, Pakistan, etc. willing to take a few trillion off of our hands when we've got it to burn.


USA...Fuck Yeah!

Matt's picture

Ok sure, between me and my employer we contributed $4000. The employment insurance could not grow, because the contributions were used to pay for other people. I could then have taken unemployment out for a year, taking around $20,000. Still 5 times what I contributed.

$40,000 in Medicare at a system that costs ~$7200 per year per person means you and your employer together paid for ~6 years of Medicare for you. If you live more than 6 years without paying in, you are going to cost more than you contributed.

As for the Social Security, let's break it down to $40,000 in contributions per decade and allow for 7% growth, to keep the math simple. That means you would have $40,000 in 1983, $120,000 in 1993, $280,000 in 2003, and ~$600,000 now. If managed properly, and with normal market conditions, this would be an ok pension. 

If the 7% yield continued, and 2% re-invested for inflation, this would leave you with $30,000 per year to live on (scaling with target inflation), which sounds correct. However, you are correct that the money seems to have been squandered on wars, and also with this current environment, it might grow 3% and real inflation is around 12%.

So 2 out of 3 of the examples were clear failures where the programs pay out way more than they take in, and 1 example could have worked, but due to government and central bank policy were completely butchered.

Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

Before the 1965 Coinage act, what people paid in was defined in Dollars of Silver.  There are still people alive who paid in using the silver dollars.  The dollar stayed this way for 172 years.  You could always redeem any paper dollar for 90 percent silver coin and it stayed exactly the same from 1792 to 1964.  You could get two silver half dollars, four silver quarter dollars, or ten silver dimes at any bank or place of business.  The Eagle was the measurment for gold coin - not the dollar.

After the 1965 Coinage act, the Dollar was debased? debauched? not sure what is the right word - eventually to the small dollar coin we have now.  Read President Johnson's comments about the 1965 act.

There should still be a huge fund of silver dollars stashed away from those older people - there are still a bunch of them alive that paid in using the dollars defined in silver?  There pretty much has to be because they are not paying out in silver dollars now, Right?

Consider what four 1964 silver quarters are worth.  $20.44 in todays dollars.

Isn't the whole problem is the debasing/debauching/changing the value of the dollar coin?!

A government would never change the definition of a gallon, or a foot, or a pound, or any other standard of weights and measures, Right?  It would cause all kinds of chaos.

In essence, any paper dollars, notes, etc were printed against our circulating public silver coin before 1964. 

In 1971, this happened.

It is also interesting to note that President Kennedy was asssasinated in 1963.

The answers to our problems are in the history books and writings of the founding fathers.

Read this old book!

"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." - John Adams

more here



Moe Howard's picture

Reagan did it.


You "could" have a clue, but you don't.

Here is your clue for today: If someone tells you the roof is going to fall on your head, that does not mean that they want the roof to fall, they wish the roof would fall, or that they are causing the roof to fall, nor does the fact that you are counting on the roof to stay up mean that it will.

You sound an awful lot like a person who has not saved anything for retirement and social security is a big part of your "retirement plan". Good luck with that.

TimmyB's picture

Yeah, Reagan.  Here is the history of Reagan's involvment in increasing Social Security taxes in Reagan's own words. 

malek's picture

Repeat after me: "There is no SS trust fund"

It is a lockbox full of empty promises, i.e. non-marketable bonds, which by name implies they can only be redeemed to the government (Treasury), which will gladly pay out the money from... where exactly??

Rynak's picture

Also, his argument that "a gov COULD do" is kinda silly......

a gov COULD rise the primary taxes..... but it would be quite visible

a gov COULD change the SS rules.... still quite visible, but only affects old persons instead of everyone

the fed COULD inflate the dollar..... and almost no one really understands what this actually means


So, visibility matters - heck, it looks like ultimatelly most of all those ponzi schemes, primarily rely on obscurity/invisibility/deception.... way more than conventional "force". The more obvious something is, the higher the resistance against it - and the other way around.

HOWEVER, the problem with something like SS is: Here we're not just hoping that the gov wont change the rules NOW.... we bet on the gov not changing the rules for like 45 years after we started to pay in (notice, we dont start paying in at age 1). AND perhaps even more importantly: we do not account for inflation via central banks at all (has anyone ever considered, that it is completely ridiculous that SS cannot pay out the nominal input, considering just how much the dollar has devaluated???)! This is completely nuts!

I may dislike the way SS is abused and mismanaged, may dislike the way it is treated by many ZHers (has way more to do with being a jerk, than disliking a broken scheme)..... but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging, that in an ideal world, SS should never have existed.... this scheme is as braindead as a retirement-plan can get.

Papasmurf's picture

There is a lockbox.  It's at Al Gore's home.  It's filled with worthless carbon credits.

Lednbrass's picture

Uh huh.

And exactly what comprises this trust fund? A big stack of cash that Uncle Sam has been putting away for a rainy day no doubt?

No, not even close. Uncle Sam spent that money on all manner of stupid things and has been at it since LBJ. It is not different, it is not special, it is jsut a tax like any other and the government spent it like any other money. It has been used to hide deficit spending for over 40 years.  In place of that money, our wonderful leaders put a stack of IOU's called non marketable securities.

Think about this for just a minute. When those IOU's are redeemed, where will the money actually come from? Martian investors? Sales of Unicorn milk? The money fairy?

Nope. It will come from the same place that all the other money comes from- taxes on the population and the sale of debt.  Anyone who thinks that there is any surplus at all has flat out lost their minds- the money was spent.  When the pieces of paper left in their place are redeemed, the money must come from the same place as every other dollar the government spends.

There is no surplus, there is no big stack of cash socked away for a rainy day.  There are only unkeepable promses and lies. Anyone who thinks still this is adequately funded is naive to the point of being infantile. SS is a financial nuke waiting to detonate, it is and has always been a Ponzi, and the time of its inevitable breakdown is coming closer.

Oh, by the way- SS started paying out more than it took in a couple years ago. 2017? LOL! We crossed that bridge in 2010.

TimmyB's picture

The Social Security Trust Fund is invested in U.S. Government securities.  Sure, you can call them empty promises, but then every other U.S. security is made up of the exact same promise; that the U.S. Government will pay the money due.

Additionally, before you crap all over that promise, take out a U.S. Federal Reserve Note of any denomination out and read it.  What gives that Note value, other than a U.S. Government promise?  In all seriousness, what makes a dollar bill worth $1 and a hundred dollar bill worth $100, other than the different words, numbers and artwork printed on the paper by the U.S Treasury Department?

Would you feal better about the Social Security Trust Fund if instead of having government IOUs the government filled up rooms and rooms with trillions of dollars in Federal Reserve Notes instead?  To me there is little difference.           

Lednbrass's picture

Think about this for a minute, the difference is huge.

If they had filled a vast underground complex with stacks of money, they could literally just hand it out and it would not deplete anything going on right now.

Because that money was used up, when one of those securities is cashed in now it can only come from one of two sources-

1) Current tax intake

2) Sale of debt

Option #1 removes money that would be spent elsewhere, #2 burdens the future even more. We already spent 450 billion on interest in 2011, how much more do we need to pour down that hole?

I suppose it could be argued that we could just have the Fed monetize it like they do everything else nowadays but this will only further undermine the currency in the ever less distant future- at which point they get nothing.

Chump's picture

You are dumber than a bag of hammers.

malek's picture

Yep, there is little difference.

When that filled up room is starting to get emptied, it will debase all existing dollars already in circulation. Which perfectly describes the way all those promises will get "paid".

And then you will also get paid your SS, just as promised.
At least nominally.

So, are you happy and relieved now?

TexasAggie's picture

You must still be using your tax program to do your taxes and owe "0". The SS TF Administrators have different dates for each of the three funds, SSTF, Medicare, and SS Disability. So do more homework.

francis_sawyer's picture

 "it could make fish the national currency..."


Well considering that the fish probably ate all the gold that went down in our collective boating accidents, that might be a good idea...

greyghost's picture

just another jackass talking out of their you know what. another discussion about soc. sec. and or medicare as if they were locked in a box all by themselves. no talk about cutting the military budget or black opps cia budgets or federal education budgets or congresional payroll or white house payroll or nasa funding or tree hugger back to picking berries budgets or welfare for the corporations or welfare to the tune of trillions of dollars to keep the top dozen bank zombies in hard to find cash. no just morew and more bullshit about screwing the average joe......endlessly endlessly....on and on...on and on!!!!! left right left right left right same old thinking inside the box. would someone please tape the box shut..............

dick cheneys ghost's picture

We just opened our newest Military base in Colombia........Yippee!...............But I thought we were broke??????

Normalcy Bias's picture

That must mean that we're finally gonna win that 'War On Drugs' any day now!

greyghost's picture

omg...don't get me started on the "war on drugs"!!!! talk about crony job growth! war on cancer, war on poverty.....war on the constitution. all a big waste of time and money. well i have often wondered what would happen should the war on poverty be declared won and all payments were to cease? where would all those people go? to your house...maybe my house? with the perpetual ponzi scheme from the bankers these past one hundred years you need the poverty war or things would go explosive very quickly.

knightowl77's picture

Panetta is in VietNam we are going to open a naval base there too....We are so screwed

Papasmurf's picture

Or it could be harvest time.

HurricaneSeason's picture

Watch heroin disappear and the country be flooded with cocaine as well as pharmaceutical cocaine at pill mills.

El Oregonian's picture

"But I thought we were broke??????"

Yea, they're only broke for you and me...

barroter's picture

Yeah, we're all so much better off trusting the Banks and Wall st with our retirements. So sleep assured....sucker!