That's just a meaningless assertion. SS money doesn't just go into the general fund, bonds are issued. That's what the entire discussion was about. When you buy bonds, the money goes into the general fund, too. Is buying bonds a "plain ol' tax?"
back
1 comments
> That's just a meaningless assertion.
Whether something is marketable is meaningful. US bonds are traded on an open market. The securities issued to the SSA cannot be sold on this market or to anyone.
If APPL issued me a promised to pay me back for pizza last night I have... a promise. But if they issue me a bond I could turn around and sell it the next day, depending on whether I trusted APPL or had better uses for my money.
The securities issued to the SSA are functionally equivalent to "IOU"s.
> Is buying bonds a "plain ol' tax?"
The SSA has tons of assets, in non-marketable bonds. What's the point of an asset that can't be sold? It's just an accounting detail. If the bonds never existed the situation would not be functionally different.
I didn't know the difference between an IOU and a bond is that IOUs can't be sold. I'll need a reference to IOU law for that, because I always thought that they only existed as a talking point from the Heritage Foundation dating from somewhere around the beginning of the Bush administration.
edit: You know what functions of government don't hold any bonds? Almost all of them. Are the roads a pyramid scheme? Is all government a pyramid scheme? I still find it tough to believe that there's a group of people who say that:
1. Because the government can selectively default on the bonds held by Social Security if it votes to selectively default on the bonds held by Social Security.
2. Therefore, Social Security is an unsustainable pyramid scheme,
3. Therefore, the government should default on the bonds held by Social Security.
The government can also selectively default on the bonds held by me personally, or by China, or by anyone not named Todd. I can also collect their shares of the rent from all of my roommates, deposit it into my general fund at the bank, spend all the money on crack, then set the house on fire. The point of view of the "IOU" people is that my roommates should vote for me to do that, because once the money was in my bank account it transformed into whimsy and unicorns and at least the commitment to the crack binge and imminent homelessness gives them the certainty to plan for the future.
If the government is defaulting on any bonds, as an American, you have more to worry about than your retirement, namely roving bands of cannibals in the street and nuclear fallout, or that the Peter Peterson Foundation has finally taken back the White House.
LOL you win! I should have known better than to go up against an IOU law expert.
I'm just a simple, evil republican bush-sucker. Does that help you categorize me and thereby ignore anything I'm saying?
Enjoy your Social Security!
I don't think Republicans are evil. I think people who make arguments that rely on renaming something that already has a name, then rely on the connotations carried with that new name to imply that which is to be proven are misguided. I feel I've responded to everything you've said.
None of what I said was intended to imply that Social Security will exist next year. There is a resurgent philosophical contagion that intends to whittle away all government functions until it is purely a police force to protect private property. They could easily succeed.