lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Boomers didn't create Social Security or Medicare. Next!

---

But they are the first generation to give Social Security a negative cash flow.

---

Not true. We still don't have a negative cash flow. The current projection for trust fund balance to run out is 2035.

You can't spend up the social security money in the general budget and blame social security.

It's paid its way until 2035.

---

Hate to tell you, but there is no trust fund. There is just a binder with some fancy pieces of paper that allow them to draw on the treasury without congressional appropriations. The treasury then has to borrow or print the money to cover it.

---

Yeah, I know there is no actual trust fund. That is irrelevant as far as claiming SS has a negative cash flow. Thus my comment about spending the SS money for general budget items - which is what they did - and then blaming SS as the issue and claiming negative cash flow. It's bull*****

---

Money in vs money out is cash flow. You're trying to take credit for surpluses that went into the general fund and acting like it was stolen. Social security was always a tax. There is no trust fund, no lock box, no individual accounts, it was set up as a tax to pay for an elder welfare program.

---

The money in covers SS. Last I checked, that money is more than the current SS outlay. They are simply paying back the IOUs in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. I'm not taking credit for anything. SS is not cash negative and won't be until 2035.

---

There is no trust fund. The OASI is a literal binder. The treasury pays more in benefits each year than the treasury receives in social security taxes. You are trying to claim that the money comes from the magic binder and not the treasury.

---

You are completely wrong.

Let me ask this: is a US Treasury an asset? Hopefully you understand that is it. Do you expect the government to redeem it when it matures? Hopefully you agree.

The SS fund is full of US bonds. Those are REAL assets! They are Special-Issue Treasury Securities which are non-marketable U.S. Treasury bonds issued specifically to the Social Security Trust Fund. They are not traded on the open market like regular Treasury bonds but are obligations of the U.S. government. They earn interest, just like any US bond you own.

When Social Security needs funds to pay benefits (e.g., when payroll tax revenue falls short), the trust fund redeems these securities. The U.S. Treasury pays the trust fund the principal and accrued interest.

It's no different than had they issued those bonds to the citizens directly and the citizen exchanges the bond for their SS money when they need it.

SS is good until 2035.

---

I think we identified the disconnect. US Treasuries are not assets. US Treasuries are liabilities.

When the government buys its own bonds it's an accounting trick because the asset created is offset by the liability it creates.

It takes Enron level accounting to claim something you create out of thin air is an asset while simultaneously ignoring the other side of the ledger where the liabilities are recorded.

Social security has been cash negative for 15 years.

---

No. They are not liabilities to the fund. They are assets! It's no different than giving the citizens the bonds for their FICA payments to redeem for SS money in the future, instead of storing the bonds in the trust fund. It's simply exchanging taxpayer money for US bonds. The keeper of the bond is irrelevant.

Yes, we have identified the issue, it's in your seat. Lol. SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

You do realize that social security is part of the government? If the government issues a bond to one part of the government and a liability to another part of the government, they cancel each other out.

It's like your wife gets a cash advance on your joint credit card and her claiming that her shopping trip to the Galleria was cash positive because she came home with more cash than she left with. Meanwhile your house is about to be foreclosed on but hey, no worries, that fancy new makeup and shoes are paying for themselves so no need to reign in her frivolous spending.

---

By that logic, every US bond held by US taxpayers is also worthless. We owe it to ourselves. I'm gonna pay the taxes in the future to pay myself off in the future for the bond I hold! Lol

The holder is irrelevant. It's an asset.

---

I am not the government and neither are you.

You may or may not pay the taxes on that bond, Apple may pay it off for you when they pay the tariffs on the products they import. Maybe we collect royalties on our foreign oil sales and those are used to pay off the bonds you hold. Maybe the government sells some land they own. Or more likely, they do what they do to pay off the notes held by social security they print it.

Your taxes are not the governments main source of income.

---

Money is fungible. It's the exact same logic. The fact that it's the US government holding the asset instead of the taxpayer is completely irrelevant.

SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

Social Security checks are paid out of the US treasury. They are not paid out by the Social Security Administration's accounts.

The treasury is printing the money required to cover Social Security's expenses because Social Security taxes don't bring in as much money as they are paying out. It's been this way since 2010. No amount of Enron accounting can change that.

---

The SS fund has US Treasuries, which are assets. No different than my US treasuries. I don't care how the government gets the cash to pay off those bonds. Completely irrelevant. There is no Enron accounting.

SS will be cash negative in 2035.

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Reaganomics and Fiscal Irresponsibility

Boomers in power adopted and entrenched the Reagan-era economic model of tax cuts, deregulation, and runaway deficit spending. Each successive administration has continued to "kick the can," ignoring the long-term consequences. Today, the national debt is unsustainable, and younger generations will be forced to pay the bill when the financial reckoning arrives.

---

This is bull**** and ignores history. We've had runaway deficit spending since Hoover.

---

You are right that deficit spending has been around since Hoover. But much different orders of magnitude and underlying situations.

To not ignore history: yes, from Hoover to FDR to LBJs great society there has been deficit spending but when you look back at those different eras it was largely tied to Wars and economic recessions.

Under Reagan debt tripled and the difference between your historical deficit argument starts to show as it became structural and built in with policy.

Earlier deficit spending (WWII, infrastructure, education) aimed to stimulate long-term growth. More recent deficits have funded consumption, tax cuts, and military campaigns.

See attached graph to illustrate the differences you highlighted. Earlier spending built future capacity; more recent policies have mortgaged the future.

And I feel that is the main point to me on this concept.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Cost of living is a lot worse for people that are 25 now than it was for people that are 35, 45 or 55 now. Low inflation for 30+ years was pretty cool.

Plus social media is feeding kids comparison garbage all day. And more due to the wealth in older generations, there are quite a few people that have gotten down payments or start up cash from family. They skew the comparisons as well.

You can still do well if you are in your 20s. But you have to be above average in maturity, skill, brains, etc. I'd argue for the last 30 years (2008-2010 being the exception), you were able to skate by with a decent job, decent home and some vacation money.

---

The 1970's would like a word…

Biz Ag said:

---

Unfortunately the sense of entitlement is everywhere.

---

If you're referring to me. I do not feel I am entitled at all. Admittedly, I get triggered when boomers decide to belittle the generations they raised while we work through the challenges they themselves created.

My posts on this thread are just providing the evidence of what I see from my chair. I have busted my ass to be where we are and everyone in my sphere work hard and add value where they can and are largely reracking what our parents instilled in us. The lolOldz mentality of "back in my day I used to walk 3 miles in the snow to school. Uphill both ways" needs to end and we all need to work on policy improvement today so that future generations don't suffer for our short term gain decision making that has been the status quo for 40-50 years.

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Boomers didn't create Social Security or Medicare. Next!

---

But they are the first generation to give Social Security a negative cash flow.

---

Not true. We still don't have a negative cash flow. The current projection for trust fund balance to run out is 2035.

You can't spend up the social security money in the general budget and blame social security.

It's paid its way until 2035.

---

Hate to tell you, but there is no trust fund. There is just a binder with some fancy pieces of paper that allow them to draw on the treasury without congressional appropriations. The treasury then has to borrow or print the money to cover it.

---

Yeah, I know there is no actual trust fund. That is irrelevant as far as claiming SS has a negative cash flow. Thus my comment about spending the SS money for general budget items - which is what they did - and then blaming SS as the issue and claiming negative cash flow. It's bull*****

---

Money in vs money out is cash flow. You're trying to take credit for surpluses that went into the general fund and acting like it was stolen. Social security was always a tax. There is no trust fund, no lock box, no individual accounts, it was set up as a tax to pay for an elder welfare program.

---

The money in covers SS. Last I checked, that money is more than the current SS outlay. They are simply paying back the IOUs in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. I'm not taking credit for anything. SS is not cash negative and won't be until 2035.

---

There is no trust fund. The OASI is a literal binder. The treasury pays more in benefits each year than the treasury receives in social security taxes. You are trying to claim that the money comes from the magic binder and not the treasury.

---

You are completely wrong.

Let me ask this: is a US Treasury an asset? Hopefully you understand that is it. Do you expect the government to redeem it when it matures? Hopefully you agree.

The SS fund is full of US bonds. Those are REAL assets! They are Special-Issue Treasury Securities which are non-marketable U.S. Treasury bonds issued specifically to the Social Security Trust Fund. They are not traded on the open market like regular Treasury bonds but are obligations of the U.S. government. They earn interest, just like any US bond you own.

When Social Security needs funds to pay benefits (e.g., when payroll tax revenue falls short), the trust fund redeems these securities. The U.S. Treasury pays the trust fund the principal and accrued interest.

It's no different than had they issued those bonds to the citizens directly and the citizen exchanges the bond for their SS money when they need it.

SS is good until 2035.

---

I think we identified the disconnect. US Treasuries are not assets. US Treasuries are liabilities.

When the government buys its own bonds it's an accounting trick because the asset created is offset by the liability it creates.

It takes Enron level accounting to claim something you create out of thin air is an asset while simultaneously ignoring the other side of the ledger where the liabilities are recorded.

Social security has been cash negative for 15 years.

---

No. They are not liabilities to the fund. They are assets! It's no different than giving the citizens the bonds for their FICA payments to redeem for SS money in the future, instead of storing the bonds in the trust fund. It's simply exchanging taxpayer money for US bonds. The keeper of the bond is irrelevant.

Yes, we have identified the issue, it's in your seat. Lol. SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

You do realize that social security is part of the government? If the government issues a bond to one part of the government and a liability to another part of the government, they cancel each other out.

It's like your wife gets a cash advance on your joint credit card and her claiming that her shopping trip to the Galleria was cash positive because she came home with more cash than she left with. Meanwhile your house is about to be foreclosed on but hey, no worries, that fancy new makeup and shoes are paying for themselves so no need to reign in her frivolous spending.

---

By that logic, every US bond held by US taxpayers is also worthless. We owe it to ourselves. I'm gonna pay the taxes in the future to pay myself off in the future for the bond I hold! Lol

The holder is irrelevant. It's an asset.

---

I am not the government and neither are you.

You may or may not pay the taxes on that bond, Apple may pay it off for you when they pay the tariffs on the products they import. Maybe we collect royalties on our foreign oil sales and those are used to pay off the bonds you hold. Maybe the government sells some land they own. Or more likely, they do what they do to pay off the notes held by social security they print it.

Your taxes are not the governments main source of income.

---

Money is fungible. It's the exact same logic. The fact that it's the US government holding the asset instead of the taxpayer is completely irrelevant.

SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

Social Security checks are paid out of the US treasury. They are not paid out by the Social Security Administration's accounts.

The treasury is printing the money required to cover Social Security's expenses because Social Security taxes don't bring in as much money as they are paying out. It's been this way since 2010. No amount of Enron accounting can change that.

---

The SS fund has US Treasuries, which are assets. No different than my US treasuries. I don't care how the government gets the cash to pay off those bonds. Completely irrelevant. There is no Enron accounting.

SS will be cash negative in 2035.

---

Can you at least admit that social security payroll taxes don't cover outlays?

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Boomers didn't create Social Security or Medicare. Next!

---

But they are the first generation to give Social Security a negative cash flow.

---

Not true. We still don't have a negative cash flow. The current projection for trust fund balance to run out is 2035.

You can't spend up the social security money in the general budget and blame social security.

It's paid its way until 2035.

---

Hate to tell you, but there is no trust fund. There is just a binder with some fancy pieces of paper that allow them to draw on the treasury without congressional appropriations. The treasury then has to borrow or print the money to cover it.

---

Yeah, I know there is no actual trust fund. That is irrelevant as far as claiming SS has a negative cash flow. Thus my comment about spending the SS money for general budget items - which is what they did - and then blaming SS as the issue and claiming negative cash flow. It's bull*****

---

Money in vs money out is cash flow. You're trying to take credit for surpluses that went into the general fund and acting like it was stolen. Social security was always a tax. There is no trust fund, no lock box, no individual accounts, it was set up as a tax to pay for an elder welfare program.

---

The money in covers SS. Last I checked, that money is more than the current SS outlay. They are simply paying back the IOUs in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. I'm not taking credit for anything. SS is not cash negative and won't be until 2035.

---

There is no trust fund. The OASI is a literal binder. The treasury pays more in benefits each year than the treasury receives in social security taxes. You are trying to claim that the money comes from the magic binder and not the treasury.

---

You are completely wrong.

Let me ask this: is a US Treasury an asset? Hopefully you understand that is it. Do you expect the government to redeem it when it matures? Hopefully you agree.

The SS fund is full of US bonds. Those are REAL assets! They are Special-Issue Treasury Securities which are non-marketable U.S. Treasury bonds issued specifically to the Social Security Trust Fund. They are not traded on the open market like regular Treasury bonds but are obligations of the U.S. government. They earn interest, just like any US bond you own.

When Social Security needs funds to pay benefits (e.g., when payroll tax revenue falls short), the trust fund redeems these securities. The U.S. Treasury pays the trust fund the principal and accrued interest.

It's no different than had they issued those bonds to the citizens directly and the citizen exchanges the bond for their SS money when they need it.

SS is good until 2035.

---

I think we identified the disconnect. US Treasuries are not assets. US Treasuries are liabilities.

When the government buys its own bonds it's an accounting trick because the asset created is offset by the liability it creates.

It takes Enron level accounting to claim something you create out of thin air is an asset while simultaneously ignoring the other side of the ledger where the liabilities are recorded.

Social security has been cash negative for 15 years.

---

No. They are not liabilities to the fund. They are assets! It's no different than giving the citizens the bonds for their FICA payments to redeem for SS money in the future, instead of storing the bonds in the trust fund. It's simply exchanging taxpayer money for US bonds. The keeper of the bond is irrelevant.

Yes, we have identified the issue, it's in your seat. Lol. SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

You do realize that social security is part of the government? If the government issues a bond to one part of the government and a liability to another part of the government, they cancel each other out.

It's like your wife gets a cash advance on your joint credit card and her claiming that her shopping trip to the Galleria was cash positive because she came home with more cash than she left with. Meanwhile your house is about to be foreclosed on but hey, no worries, that fancy new makeup and shoes are paying for themselves so no need to reign in her frivolous spending.

---

By that logic, every US bond held by US taxpayers is also worthless. We owe it to ourselves. I'm gonna pay the taxes in the future to pay myself off in the future for the bond I hold! Lol

The holder is irrelevant. It's an asset.

---

I am not the government and neither are you.

You may or may not pay the taxes on that bond, Apple may pay it off for you when they pay the tariffs on the products they import. Maybe we collect royalties on our foreign oil sales and those are used to pay off the bonds you hold. Maybe the government sells some land they own. Or more likely, they do what they do to pay off the notes held by social security they print it.

Your taxes are not the governments main source of income.

---

Money is fungible. It's the exact same logic. The fact that it's the US government holding the asset instead of the taxpayer is completely irrelevant.

SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

Social Security checks are paid out of the US treasury. They are not paid out by the Social Security Administration's accounts.

The treasury is printing the money required to cover Social Security's expenses because Social Security taxes don't bring in as much money as they are paying out. It's been this way since 2010. No amount of Enron accounting can change that.

---

The SS fund has US Treasuries, which are assets. No different than my US treasuries. I don't care how the government gets the cash to pay off those bonds. Completely irrelevant. There is no Enron accounting.

SS will be cash negative in 2035.

---

Can you at least admit that social security payroll taxes don't cover outlays?

---

Ok.

If we end SS right now, today. SS has taken in appx $2.5 trillion more than it paid out since it began in 1940. SS ran a surplus over it's lifetime to this point.

People are upset with SS, but the issue is with excessive spending by the government, not SS. SS has paid its own way. At some point, 10 years from now, it becomes a net negative.

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Boomers didn't create Social Security or Medicare. Next!

---

But they are the first generation to give Social Security a negative cash flow.

---

Not true. We still don't have a negative cash flow. The current projection for trust fund balance to run out is 2035.

You can't spend up the social security money in the general budget and blame social security.

It's paid its way until 2035.

---

Hate to tell you, but there is no trust fund. There is just a binder with some fancy pieces of paper that allow them to draw on the treasury without congressional appropriations. The treasury then has to borrow or print the money to cover it.

---

Yeah, I know there is no actual trust fund. That is irrelevant as far as claiming SS has a negative cash flow. Thus my comment about spending the SS money for general budget items - which is what they did - and then blaming SS as the issue and claiming negative cash flow. It's bull*****

---

Money in vs money out is cash flow. You're trying to take credit for surpluses that went into the general fund and acting like it was stolen. Social security was always a tax. There is no trust fund, no lock box, no individual accounts, it was set up as a tax to pay for an elder welfare program.

---

The money in covers SS. Last I checked, that money is more than the current SS outlay. They are simply paying back the IOUs in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. I'm not taking credit for anything. SS is not cash negative and won't be until 2035.

---

There is no trust fund. The OASI is a literal binder. The treasury pays more in benefits each year than the treasury receives in social security taxes. You are trying to claim that the money comes from the magic binder and not the treasury.

---

You are completely wrong.

Let me ask this: is a US Treasury an asset? Hopefully you understand that is it. Do you expect the government to redeem it when it matures? Hopefully you agree.

The SS fund is full of US bonds. Those are REAL assets! They are Special-Issue Treasury Securities which are non-marketable U.S. Treasury bonds issued specifically to the Social Security Trust Fund. They are not traded on the open market like regular Treasury bonds but are obligations of the U.S. government. They earn interest, just like any US bond you own.

When Social Security needs funds to pay benefits (e.g., when payroll tax revenue falls short), the trust fund redeems these securities. The U.S. Treasury pays the trust fund the principal and accrued interest.

It's no different than had they issued those bonds to the citizens directly and the citizen exchanges the bond for their SS money when they need it.

SS is good until 2035.

---

I think we identified the disconnect. US Treasuries are not assets. US Treasuries are liabilities.

When the government buys its own bonds it's an accounting trick because the asset created is offset by the liability it creates.

It takes Enron level accounting to claim something you create out of thin air is an asset while simultaneously ignoring the other side of the ledger where the liabilities are recorded.

Social security has been cash negative for 15 years.

---

No. They are not liabilities to the fund. They are assets! It's no different than giving the citizens the bonds for their FICA payments to redeem for SS money in the future, instead of storing the bonds in the trust fund. It's simply exchanging taxpayer money for US bonds. The keeper of the bond is irrelevant.

Yes, we have identified the issue, it's in your seat. Lol. SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

You do realize that social security is part of the government? If the government issues a bond to one part of the government and a liability to another part of the government, they cancel each other out.

It's like your wife gets a cash advance on your joint credit card and her claiming that her shopping trip to the Galleria was cash positive because she came home with more cash than she left with. Meanwhile your house is about to be foreclosed on but hey, no worries, that fancy new makeup and shoes are paying for themselves so no need to reign in her frivolous spending.

---

By that logic, every US bond held by US taxpayers is also worthless. We owe it to ourselves. I'm gonna pay the taxes in the future to pay myself off in the future for the bond I hold! Lol

The holder is irrelevant. It's an asset.

---

I am not the government and neither are you.

You may or may not pay the taxes on that bond, Apple may pay it off for you when they pay the tariffs on the products they import. Maybe we collect royalties on our foreign oil sales and those are used to pay off the bonds you hold. Maybe the government sells some land they own. Or more likely, they do what they do to pay off the notes held by social security they print it.

Your taxes are not the governments main source of income.

---

Money is fungible. It's the exact same logic. The fact that it's the US government holding the asset instead of the taxpayer is completely irrelevant.

SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

Social Security checks are paid out of the US treasury. They are not paid out by the Social Security Administration's accounts.

The treasury is printing the money required to cover Social Security's expenses because Social Security taxes don't bring in as much money as they are paying out. It's been this way since 2010. No amount of Enron accounting can change that.

---

The SS fund has US Treasuries, which are assets. No different than my US treasuries. I don't care how the government gets the cash to pay off those bonds. Completely irrelevant. There is no Enron accounting.

SS will be cash negative in 2035.

---

Can you at least admit that social security payroll taxes don't cover outlays?

---

Ok.

If we end SS right now, today. SS has taken in appx $2.5 trillion more than it paid out since it began in 1940. SS ran a surplus over it's lifetime to this point.

People are upset with SS, but the issue is with excessive spending by the government, not SS. SS has paid its own way. At some point, 10 years from now, it becomes a net negative.

---

Social Security is government and the idea that the government is a good steward of money is bad thinking.

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Boomers didn't create Social Security or Medicare. Next!

---

But they are the first generation to give Social Security a negative cash flow.

---

Not true. We still don't have a negative cash flow. The current projection for trust fund balance to run out is 2035.

You can't spend up the social security money in the general budget and blame social security.

It's paid its way until 2035.

---

Hate to tell you, but there is no trust fund. There is just a binder with some fancy pieces of paper that allow them to draw on the treasury without congressional appropriations. The treasury then has to borrow or print the money to cover it.

---

Yeah, I know there is no actual trust fund. That is irrelevant as far as claiming SS has a negative cash flow. Thus my comment about spending the SS money for general budget items - which is what they did - and then blaming SS as the issue and claiming negative cash flow. It's bull*****

---

Money in vs money out is cash flow. You're trying to take credit for surpluses that went into the general fund and acting like it was stolen. Social security was always a tax. There is no trust fund, no lock box, no individual accounts, it was set up as a tax to pay for an elder welfare program.

---

The money in covers SS. Last I checked, that money is more than the current SS outlay. They are simply paying back the IOUs in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. I'm not taking credit for anything. SS is not cash negative and won't be until 2035.

---

There is no trust fund. The OASI is a literal binder. The treasury pays more in benefits each year than the treasury receives in social security taxes. You are trying to claim that the money comes from the magic binder and not the treasury.

---

You are completely wrong.

Let me ask this: is a US Treasury an asset? Hopefully you understand that is it. Do you expect the government to redeem it when it matures? Hopefully you agree.

The SS fund is full of US bonds. Those are REAL assets! They are Special-Issue Treasury Securities which are non-marketable U.S. Treasury bonds issued specifically to the Social Security Trust Fund. They are not traded on the open market like regular Treasury bonds but are obligations of the U.S. government. They earn interest, just like any US bond you own.

When Social Security needs funds to pay benefits (e.g., when payroll tax revenue falls short), the trust fund redeems these securities. The U.S. Treasury pays the trust fund the principal and accrued interest.

It's no different than had they issued those bonds to the citizens directly and the citizen exchanges the bond for their SS money when they need it.

SS is good until 2035.

---

I think we identified the disconnect. US Treasuries are not assets. US Treasuries are liabilities.

When the government buys its own bonds it's an accounting trick because the asset created is offset by the liability it creates.

It takes Enron level accounting to claim something you create out of thin air is an asset while simultaneously ignoring the other side of the ledger where the liabilities are recorded.

Social security has been cash negative for 15 years.

---

No. They are not liabilities to the fund. They are assets! It's no different than giving the citizens the bonds for their FICA payments to redeem for SS money in the future, instead of storing the bonds in the trust fund. It's simply exchanging taxpayer money for US bonds. The keeper of the bond is irrelevant.

Yes, we have identified the issue, it's in your seat. Lol. SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

You do realize that social security is part of the government? If the government issues a bond to one part of the government and a liability to another part of the government, they cancel each other out.

It's like your wife gets a cash advance on your joint credit card and her claiming that her shopping trip to the Galleria was cash positive because she came home with more cash than she left with. Meanwhile your house is about to be foreclosed on but hey, no worries, that fancy new makeup and shoes are paying for themselves so no need to reign in her frivolous spending.

---

By that logic, every US bond held by US taxpayers is also worthless. We owe it to ourselves. I'm gonna pay the taxes in the future to pay myself off in the future for the bond I hold! Lol

The holder is irrelevant. It's an asset.

---

I am not the government and neither are you.

You may or may not pay the taxes on that bond, Apple may pay it off for you when they pay the tariffs on the products they import. Maybe we collect royalties on our foreign oil sales and those are used to pay off the bonds you hold. Maybe the government sells some land they own. Or more likely, they do what they do to pay off the notes held by social security they print it.

Your taxes are not the governments main source of income.

---

Money is fungible. It's the exact same logic. The fact that it's the US government holding the asset instead of the taxpayer is completely irrelevant.

SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

Social Security checks are paid out of the US treasury. They are not paid out by the Social Security Administration's accounts.

The treasury is printing the money required to cover Social Security's expenses because Social Security taxes don't bring in as much money as they are paying out. It's been this way since 2010. No amount of Enron accounting can change that.

---

The SS fund has US Treasuries, which are assets. No different than my US treasuries. I don't care how the government gets the cash to pay off those bonds. Completely irrelevant. There is no Enron accounting.

SS will be cash negative in 2035.

---

Can you at least admit that social security payroll taxes don't cover outlays?

---

Actually, all SS taxes collected since SS began exceed SS payments to beneficiaries. A surplus. However Congress did not set the surplus aside for SS. They spent it on other stuff, thus today some of SS is paid from the general fund. But that's not because SS hasn't collected enough taxes.

Somewhere around 2032 there will no longer be a surplus of tax collections and total benefits paid since SS began will start to exceed tax collections. We'll be in a deficit at that point and for the foreseeable future.

A lot of people see the general fund supporting SS today and assume that's because we haven't collected enough taxes, which is incorrect. It's another example of our federal government's complete incompetency with managing a responsible budget.

LMCane said:

---

definitely more stressful in 2025 than in 1944 for people in their twenties!~

---

Oh my. This is exactly what I continue to point out. Boomers who enjoyed the post war growth on the backs of the greatest generation and taking that generation's credit. Boomers acting like they went through D-Day on the beaches of Normandy…. Classic… a story as old as time itself it seems!

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

definitely more stressful in 2025 than in 1944 for people in their twenties!~

---

Oh my. This is exactly what I continue to point out. Boomers who enjoyed the post war growth on the backs of the greatest generation and taking that generation's credit. Boomers acting like they went through D-Day on the beaches of Normandy…. Classic… a story as old as time itself it seems!

---

TBF, the older Boomers did have Vietnam, but that was a smaller-scale war than World War 2.

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Boomers didn't create Social Security or Medicare. Next!

---

But they are the first generation to give Social Security a negative cash flow.

---

Not true. We still don't have a negative cash flow. The current projection for trust fund balance to run out is 2035.

You can't spend up the social security money in the general budget and blame social security.

It's paid its way until 2035.

---

Hate to tell you, but there is no trust fund. There is just a binder with some fancy pieces of paper that allow them to draw on the treasury without congressional appropriations. The treasury then has to borrow or print the money to cover it.

---

Yeah, I know there is no actual trust fund. That is irrelevant as far as claiming SS has a negative cash flow. Thus my comment about spending the SS money for general budget items - which is what they did - and then blaming SS as the issue and claiming negative cash flow. It's bull*****

---

Money in vs money out is cash flow. You're trying to take credit for surpluses that went into the general fund and acting like it was stolen. Social security was always a tax. There is no trust fund, no lock box, no individual accounts, it was set up as a tax to pay for an elder welfare program.

---

The money in covers SS. Last I checked, that money is more than the current SS outlay. They are simply paying back the IOUs in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. I'm not taking credit for anything. SS is not cash negative and won't be until 2035.

---

There is no trust fund. The OASI is a literal binder. The treasury pays more in benefits each year than the treasury receives in social security taxes. You are trying to claim that the money comes from the magic binder and not the treasury.

---

You are completely wrong.

Let me ask this: is a US Treasury an asset? Hopefully you understand that is it. Do you expect the government to redeem it when it matures? Hopefully you agree.

The SS fund is full of US bonds. Those are REAL assets! They are Special-Issue Treasury Securities which are non-marketable U.S. Treasury bonds issued specifically to the Social Security Trust Fund. They are not traded on the open market like regular Treasury bonds but are obligations of the U.S. government. They earn interest, just like any US bond you own.

When Social Security needs funds to pay benefits (e.g., when payroll tax revenue falls short), the trust fund redeems these securities. The U.S. Treasury pays the trust fund the principal and accrued interest.

It's no different than had they issued those bonds to the citizens directly and the citizen exchanges the bond for their SS money when they need it.

SS is good until 2035.

---

I think we identified the disconnect. US Treasuries are not assets. US Treasuries are liabilities.

When the government buys its own bonds it's an accounting trick because the asset created is offset by the liability it creates.

It takes Enron level accounting to claim something you create out of thin air is an asset while simultaneously ignoring the other side of the ledger where the liabilities are recorded.

Social security has been cash negative for 15 years.

---

No. They are not liabilities to the fund. They are assets! It's no different than giving the citizens the bonds for their FICA payments to redeem for SS money in the future, instead of storing the bonds in the trust fund. It's simply exchanging taxpayer money for US bonds. The keeper of the bond is irrelevant.

Yes, we have identified the issue, it's in your seat. Lol. SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

You do realize that social security is part of the government? If the government issues a bond to one part of the government and a liability to another part of the government, they cancel each other out.

It's like your wife gets a cash advance on your joint credit card and her claiming that her shopping trip to the Galleria was cash positive because she came home with more cash than she left with. Meanwhile your house is about to be foreclosed on but hey, no worries, that fancy new makeup and shoes are paying for themselves so no need to reign in her frivolous spending.

---

By that logic, every US bond held by US taxpayers is also worthless. We owe it to ourselves. I'm gonna pay the taxes in the future to pay myself off in the future for the bond I hold! Lol

The holder is irrelevant. It's an asset.

---

I am not the government and neither are you.

You may or may not pay the taxes on that bond, Apple may pay it off for you when they pay the tariffs on the products they import. Maybe we collect royalties on our foreign oil sales and those are used to pay off the bonds you hold. Maybe the government sells some land they own. Or more likely, they do what they do to pay off the notes held by social security they print it.

Your taxes are not the governments main source of income.

---

Money is fungible. It's the exact same logic. The fact that it's the US government holding the asset instead of the taxpayer is completely irrelevant.

SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

Social Security checks are paid out of the US treasury. They are not paid out by the Social Security Administration's accounts.

The treasury is printing the money required to cover Social Security's expenses because Social Security taxes don't bring in as much money as they are paying out. It's been this way since 2010. No amount of Enron accounting can change that.

---

The SS fund has US Treasuries, which are assets. No different than my US treasuries. I don't care how the government gets the cash to pay off those bonds. Completely irrelevant. There is no Enron accounting.

SS will be cash negative in 2035.

---

Can you at least admit that social security payroll taxes don't cover outlays?

---

Ok.

If we end SS right now, today. SS has taken in appx $2.5 trillion more than it paid out since it began in 1940. SS ran a surplus over it's lifetime to this point.

People are upset with SS, but the issue is with excessive spending by the government, not SS. SS has paid its own way. At some point, 10 years from now, it becomes a net negative.

---

Rather than counting taxes spent 60 years ago as an asset, can you at least admit that since 2010 social security outlays have exceeded payroll taxes?

With your refusal to look at the other side of the accounting ledger I guess we could also say that the income tax program has run a $50T+ surplus.

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Reaganomics and Fiscal Irresponsibility

Boomers in power adopted and entrenched the Reagan-era economic model of tax cuts, deregulation, and runaway deficit spending. Each successive administration has continued to "kick the can," ignoring the long-term consequences. Today, the national debt is unsustainable, and younger generations will be forced to pay the bill when the financial reckoning arrives.

---

This is bull**** and ignores history. We've had runaway deficit spending since Hoover.

---

You are right that deficit spending has been around since Hoover. But much different orders of magnitude and underlying situations.

To not ignore history: yes, from Hoover to FDR to LBJs great society there has been deficit spending but when you look back at those different eras it was largely tied to Wars and economic recessions.

Under Reagan debt tripled and the difference between your historical deficit argument starts to show as it became structural and built in with policy.

Earlier deficit spending (WWII, infrastructure, education) aimed to stimulate long-term growth. More recent deficits have funded consumption, tax cuts, and military campaigns.

See attached graph to illustrate the differences you highlighted. Earlier spending built future capacity; more recent policies have mortgaged the future.

And I feel that is the main point to me on this concept.

---

Boomers had little to do with Reagan. They were in their 30's or younger for the most part and voted Democrat. BTW, the issue with Reagan era was the Dem Congress wouldn't follow through on spending cuts that Reagan tried to implement and he had to compromise to get the defense spending that resulted in the end of the Cold War. It's also a misnomer that the tax cuts caused deficits and debt. In 1981 income taxes brought in about $290 Billion in revenue. In 1989 it was over $600 Billion or more than double the income in 8 years. The problem was the spending not the taxes, lower taxes (esp on higher incomes) result in more revenue because they promote economic growth and less incentive to shelter money from taxes. High income taxes are about social justice and marxism not about revenue generation and that has been proven time and again. As an aside, the reason we went from deficits to surpluses suddenly in the '90s was because cutting the capital gains tax rate causes a massive spike in investment as people and companies took profits at the lower tax rate and reinvested them.

The Generation that actually deserves a tremendous amount of blame for our problems but very rarely gets any flack is the WWII Generation. Of course they did many great things but they did an awful lot to screw us up. It's not like every member of that Gen was storming the beaches in Normandy or fighting in the Pacific either in spite of what you may have heard. I knew many from that Gen that never saved a dime and then were affronted with the idea of anything but massive increases to SS and of course getting massive Medicare benefits that they paid a pittance for in their working years compared to now.

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

Biz Ag said:

---

Unfortunately the sense of entitlement is everywhere.

---

If you're referring to me. I do not feel I am entitled at all. Admittedly, I get triggered when boomers decide to belittle the generations they raised while we work through the challenges they themselves created.

My posts on this thread are just providing the evidence of what I see from my chair. I have busted my ass to be where we are and everyone in my sphere work hard and add value where they can and are largely reracking what our parents instilled in us. The lolOldz mentality of "back in my day I used to walk 3 miles in the snow to school. Uphill both ways" needs to end and we all need to work on policy improvement today so that future generations don't suffer for our short term gain decision making that has been the status quo for 40-50 years.

---

I have absolutely no clue why you thought I was singling you out.

Just look at the pushback DOGE is getting from some people in all walks of life, kicking and screaming about what the government "owes" them. It's sickening and proves my point.

aggie93 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Reaganomics and Fiscal Irresponsibility

Boomers in power adopted and entrenched the Reagan-era economic model of tax cuts, deregulation, and runaway deficit spending. Each successive administration has continued to "kick the can," ignoring the long-term consequences. Today, the national debt is unsustainable, and younger generations will be forced to pay the bill when the financial reckoning arrives.

---

This is bull**** and ignores history. We've had runaway deficit spending since Hoover.

---

You are right that deficit spending has been around since Hoover. But much different orders of magnitude and underlying situations.

To not ignore history: yes, from Hoover to FDR to LBJs great society there has been deficit spending but when you look back at those different eras it was largely tied to Wars and economic recessions.

Under Reagan debt tripled and the difference between your historical deficit argument starts to show as it became structural and built in with policy.

Earlier deficit spending (WWII, infrastructure, education) aimed to stimulate long-term growth. More recent deficits have funded consumption, tax cuts, and military campaigns.

See attached graph to illustrate the differences you highlighted. Earlier spending built future capacity; more recent policies have mortgaged the future.

And I feel that is the main point to me on this concept.

---

Boomers had little to do with Reagan. They were in their 30's or younger for the most part and voted Democrat. BTW, the issue with Reagan era was the Dem Congress wouldn't follow through on spending cuts that Reagan tried to implement and he had to compromise to get the defense spending that resulted in the end of the Cold War. It's also a misnomer that the tax cuts caused deficits and debt. In 1981 income taxes brought in about $290 Billion in revenue. In 1989 it was over $600 Billion or more than double the income in 8 years. The problem was the spending not the taxes, lower taxes (esp on higher incomes) result in more revenue because they promote economic growth and less incentive to shelter money from taxes. High income taxes are about social justice and marxism not about revenue generation and that has been proven time and again. As an aside, the reason we went from deficits to surpluses suddenly in the '90s was because cutting the capital gains tax rate causes a massive spike in investment as people and companies took profits at the lower tax rate and reinvested them.

The Generation that actually deserves a tremendous amount of blame for our problems but very rarely gets any flack is the WWII Generation. Of course they did many great things but they did an awful lot to screw us up. It's not like every member of that Gen was storming the beaches in Normandy or fighting in the Pacific either in spite of what you may have heard. I knew many from that Gen that never saved a dime and then were affronted with the idea of anything but massive increases to SS and of course getting massive Medicare benefits that they paid a pittance for in their working years compared to now.

---

I've made similar statements and you're treading on thin ice with this forum. My uncles were from that generation and many of them crawled into a bottle after the war and never crawled back out. Many neglected their children and raised a generation of hippies. And while hippies were a minority of the Boomers, they had an outsized impact on our culture and clearly not all for the better.

The Greatest Generation dealt with the Great Depression, WWI and WWII, all of which were impressive feats all things considered. It did however make them big fans of Big Government with all sorts of social programs. Since that point, no succeeding generation has been able to muster the will power to stop/turn back those socialist ideas. In short, the seeds of our current predicament were planted 100 years ago.

So far, the Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials have all simply kicked the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. No one wants to be the one left holding the bag or being decried as heartless and cruel. We as a nation are terrified as being seen as mean or uncaring and both are viewed as evil. And for reasons beyond my understanding, allowing others to be responsible for their decisions/actions is considered both uncaring and mean nowadays.

I'm not reading the 6 pages this has generated. Probably someone has already pointed out that the concept of the quarter life crisis is like a 25 year old thing. So this thread itself is ironic because the OP proclaims this is a new thing but its not. At all.

It is coincidental that the idea is 25 years old and it's about 25 year olds realizing life sucks unless you figure out how to make it work for you. And the year now is 2025.

Mega Lops said:

---

I'm not reading the 6 pages this has generated. Probably someone has already pointed out that the concept of the quarter life crisis is like a 25 year old thing. So this thread itself is ironic because the OP proclaims this is a new thing but its not. At all.

It is coincidental that the idea is 25 years old and it's about 25 year olds realizing life sucks unless you figure out how to make it work for you. And the year now is 2025.

---

There is definitely a moment of reckoning for many college graduates around that age when they realize the path to their aspirations isn't as quick or easy as they imagined. A lot of them eventually figure it out and do just fine over time.

Then there are some who don't and they spend their life looking for people to blame. Whatever.

aggie93 said:

---

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Reaganomics and Fiscal Irresponsibility

Boomers in power adopted and entrenched the Reagan-era economic model of tax cuts, deregulation, and runaway deficit spending. Each successive administration has continued to "kick the can," ignoring the long-term consequences. Today, the national debt is unsustainable, and younger generations will be forced to pay the bill when the financial reckoning arrives.

---

This is bull**** and ignores history. We've had runaway deficit spending since Hoover.

---

You are right that deficit spending has been around since Hoover. But much different orders of magnitude and underlying situations.

To not ignore history: yes, from Hoover to FDR to LBJs great society there has been deficit spending but when you look back at those different eras it was largely tied to Wars and economic recessions.

Under Reagan debt tripled and the difference between your historical deficit argument starts to show as it became structural and built in with policy.

Earlier deficit spending (WWII, infrastructure, education) aimed to stimulate long-term growth. More recent deficits have funded consumption, tax cuts, and military campaigns.

See attached graph to illustrate the differences you highlighted. Earlier spending built future capacity; more recent policies have mortgaged the future.

And I feel that is the main point to me on this concept.

---

Boomers had little to do with Reagan. They were in their 30's or younger for the most part and voted Democrat. BTW, the issue with Reagan era was the Dem Congress wouldn't follow through on spending cuts that Reagan tried to implement and he had to compromise to get the defense spending that resulted in the end of the Cold War. It's also a misnomer that the tax cuts caused deficits and debt. In 1981 income taxes brought in about $290 Billion in revenue. In 1989 it was over $600 Billion or more than double the income in 8 years. The problem was the spending not the taxes, lower taxes (esp on higher incomes) result in more revenue because they promote economic growth and less incentive to shelter money from taxes. High income taxes are about social justice and marxism not about revenue generation and that has been proven time and again. As an aside, the reason we went from deficits to surpluses suddenly in the '90s was because cutting the capital gains tax rate causes a massive spike in investment as people and companies took profits at the lower tax rate and reinvested them.

The Generation that actually deserves a tremendous amount of blame for our problems but very rarely gets any flack is the WWII Generation. Of course they did many great things but they did an awful lot to screw us up. It's not like every member of that Gen was storming the beaches in Normandy or fighting in the Pacific either in spite of what you may have heard. I knew many from that Gen that never saved a dime and then were affronted with the idea of anything but massive increases to SS and of course getting massive Medicare benefits that they paid a pittance for in their working years compared to now.

---

I agree with many of your points here. I started at the Reagan era not bc they were boomers but bc that ideology was picked up and ran with by the boomers. (Think of the Yuppies boomer crowd rolling in the $$$ mid 80s NYC or Miami).

Boomers absorbed Reagan-era ideology (low taxes, small government, strong defense), then failed to implement fiscal responsibility once they gained power. They repeated the spending-without-offsets approach through the 2000s and 2010s IMHO. And here we are.

I'm not some entitled 1990s born kid. I just see political and economic history at par as a 35 yr old and calling a spade a spade. Statistics on our generation are awful and not indicative of the world I live in (whole nother discussion as things are wildly skewed these days across geography and class I guess) but seeing OP grab a headline and bwahhahaha absolutely needs to be called out and shamed. It's BS old man yells at clouds **** and the opposite of constructive. And that's why I'm here I guess.

ETA: to directly agree but reconcile your point. Yes, Reagan tax cuts did add your figures to revenue and yes to your point he had Dems in congress he had to settle with. If you look at defense spending it more than doubled in that time frame. Another dagger to the boomer argument as they didn't learn. Yet again took it and ran with it. "Kick the can" might have to their motto honestly!

Mega Lops said:

---

I'm not reading the 6 pages this has generated. Probably someone has already pointed out that the concept of the quarter life crisis is like a 25 year old thing. So this thread itself is ironic because the OP proclaims this is a new thing but its not. At all.

It is coincidental that the idea is 25 years old and it's about 25 year olds realizing life sucks unless you figure out how to make it work for you. And the year now is 2025.

---

Im 42 and there was none of this whining when I was 25, or 25 years ago. So no, this is a recent development. The scenario where anyone *****ed and whined and made excuses for how hard life is and how tough they have it compared to everyone before them in the history of mankind is something that started recently, within the last 5, maybe 10 years. I never once heard this **** when I was starting out, before, or for a long time after. Not once.

Now suddenly we have a generation of victims who don't like having to work for anything. Life is too hard. Oh Noes! Poor babies! Suck it up and work for your **** and stop your excuses and blame.

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Boomers didn't create Social Security or Medicare. Next!

---

But they are the first generation to give Social Security a negative cash flow.

---

Not true. We still don't have a negative cash flow. The current projection for trust fund balance to run out is 2035.

You can't spend up the social security money in the general budget and blame social security.

It's paid its way until 2035.

---

Hate to tell you, but there is no trust fund. There is just a binder with some fancy pieces of paper that allow them to draw on the treasury without congressional appropriations. The treasury then has to borrow or print the money to cover it.

---

Yeah, I know there is no actual trust fund. That is irrelevant as far as claiming SS has a negative cash flow. Thus my comment about spending the SS money for general budget items - which is what they did - and then blaming SS as the issue and claiming negative cash flow. It's bull*****

---

Money in vs money out is cash flow. You're trying to take credit for surpluses that went into the general fund and acting like it was stolen. Social security was always a tax. There is no trust fund, no lock box, no individual accounts, it was set up as a tax to pay for an elder welfare program.

---

The money in covers SS. Last I checked, that money is more than the current SS outlay. They are simply paying back the IOUs in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. I'm not taking credit for anything. SS is not cash negative and won't be until 2035.

---

There is no trust fund. The OASI is a literal binder. The treasury pays more in benefits each year than the treasury receives in social security taxes. You are trying to claim that the money comes from the magic binder and not the treasury.

---

You are completely wrong.

Let me ask this: is a US Treasury an asset? Hopefully you understand that is it. Do you expect the government to redeem it when it matures? Hopefully you agree.

The SS fund is full of US bonds. Those are REAL assets! They are Special-Issue Treasury Securities which are non-marketable U.S. Treasury bonds issued specifically to the Social Security Trust Fund. They are not traded on the open market like regular Treasury bonds but are obligations of the U.S. government. They earn interest, just like any US bond you own.

When Social Security needs funds to pay benefits (e.g., when payroll tax revenue falls short), the trust fund redeems these securities. The U.S. Treasury pays the trust fund the principal and accrued interest.

It's no different than had they issued those bonds to the citizens directly and the citizen exchanges the bond for their SS money when they need it.

SS is good until 2035.

---

I think we identified the disconnect. US Treasuries are not assets. US Treasuries are liabilities.

When the government buys its own bonds it's an accounting trick because the asset created is offset by the liability it creates.

It takes Enron level accounting to claim something you create out of thin air is an asset while simultaneously ignoring the other side of the ledger where the liabilities are recorded.

Social security has been cash negative for 15 years.

---

No. They are not liabilities to the fund. They are assets! It's no different than giving the citizens the bonds for their FICA payments to redeem for SS money in the future, instead of storing the bonds in the trust fund. It's simply exchanging taxpayer money for US bonds. The keeper of the bond is irrelevant.

Yes, we have identified the issue, it's in your seat. Lol. SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

You do realize that social security is part of the government? If the government issues a bond to one part of the government and a liability to another part of the government, they cancel each other out.

It's like your wife gets a cash advance on your joint credit card and her claiming that her shopping trip to the Galleria was cash positive because she came home with more cash than she left with. Meanwhile your house is about to be foreclosed on but hey, no worries, that fancy new makeup and shoes are paying for themselves so no need to reign in her frivolous spending.

---

By that logic, every US bond held by US taxpayers is also worthless. We owe it to ourselves. I'm gonna pay the taxes in the future to pay myself off in the future for the bond I hold! Lol

The holder is irrelevant. It's an asset.

---

I am not the government and neither are you.

You may or may not pay the taxes on that bond, Apple may pay it off for you when they pay the tariffs on the products they import. Maybe we collect royalties on our foreign oil sales and those are used to pay off the bonds you hold. Maybe the government sells some land they own. Or more likely, they do what they do to pay off the notes held by social security they print it.

Your taxes are not the governments main source of income.

---

Money is fungible. It's the exact same logic. The fact that it's the US government holding the asset instead of the taxpayer is completely irrelevant.

SS will not be cash negative until 2035.

---

Social Security checks are paid out of the US treasury. They are not paid out by the Social Security Administration's accounts.

The treasury is printing the money required to cover Social Security's expenses because Social Security taxes don't bring in as much money as they are paying out. It's been this way since 2010. No amount of Enron accounting can change that.

---

The SS fund has US Treasuries, which are assets. No different than my US treasuries. I don't care how the government gets the cash to pay off those bonds. Completely irrelevant. There is no Enron accounting.

SS will be cash negative in 2035.

---

Can you at least admit that social security payroll taxes don't cover outlays?

---

Ok.

If we end SS right now, today. SS has taken in appx $2.5 trillion more than it paid out since it began in 1940. SS ran a surplus over it's lifetime to this point.

People are upset with SS, but the issue is with excessive spending by the government, not SS. SS has paid its own way. At some point, 10 years from now, it becomes a net negative.

---

Rather than counting taxes spent 60 years ago as an asset, can you at least admit that since 2010 social security outlays have exceeded payroll taxes?

With your refusal to look at the other side of the accounting ledger I guess we could also say that the income tax program has run a $50T+ surplus.

---

I'm not counting taxes spent 60 years ago. I'm counting the bonds, which still exist. Had the government issued bonds to the public to pay for the shortfall in spending, leaving the cash in the SS trust fund, it appears you'd be ok with the claim that SS is solvent, i.e. If there were literally $2.5 trillion in cash in the trust fund instead of bonds. That, despite the fact that it's a distinction without a difference. If the government went out today and issued $2.5 trillion in 30 year treasuries to.the public and put that money in the SS fund, it doesn't make one iota of difference as far as solvency. For the 1000th time, the holder of the bond is irrelevant!.

I'm done with this argument. SS is good until 2035.

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Mega Lops said:

---

I'm not reading the 6 pages this has generated. Probably someone has already pointed out that the concept of the quarter life crisis is like a 25 year old thing. So this thread itself is ironic because the OP proclaims this is a new thing but its not. At all.

It is coincidental that the idea is 25 years old and it's about 25 year olds realizing life sucks unless you figure out how to make it work for you. And the year now is 2025.

---

Im 42 and there was none of this whining when I was 25, or 25 years ago. So no, this is a recent development. The scenario where anyone *****ed and whined and made excuses for how hard life is and how tough they have it compared to everyone before them in the history of mankind is something that started recently, within the last 5, maybe 10 years. I never once heard this **** when I was starting out, before, or for a long time after. Not once.

Now suddenly we have a generation of victims who don't like having to work for anything. Life is too hard. Oh Noes! Poor babies! Suck it up and work for your **** and stop your excuses and blame.

---

I don't think anyone disagrees with you on this discussion regardless of age. Same team man.

You come of age and realize the cards your dealt and make choices for the best outcomes for you and your family.

BUT I'll discuss with you all day the importance of understanding economic and social policy history and how it shapes the current landscape. I'm no world I can phantom that that's not important. You're missing the entire point of this thread.

OP: look at this headline. Gen z are lazy and entitled.

Ok. Yes. Clearly a problem. Stemming from child rearing that was from boomer and Gen X parents.

Ok. How did we get here?

That's the discussion. "Wow. Nut up and be a man" 1000% needs to be understood by them. But I just can't still understand the *****ing about these young guys by the folks that birthed and raised them.

Logos Stick said:

---

I'm done with this argument. SS is good until 2035.

---

You know that this isn't reassuring to those of us planning to retire in the late 2040's, right?

Quote:

---

Boomers had little to do with Reagan. They were in their 30's or younger for the most part and voted Democrat.

---

I guess it would be reasonable to start with Clinton, the first of four two-term Boomer-generation Presidents (yes, Obama technically counts).

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

Boomers had little to do with Reagan. They were in their 30's or younger for the most part and voted Democrat.

---

I guess it would be reasonable to start with Clinton, the first of four two-term Boomer-generation Presidents (yes, Obama technically counts).

---

That's correct. Boomers screwed up many things and as a Gen Xer I am no fan, just trying to be accurate that they had nothing to do with Reagan for good or bad.

aggie93 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

Boomers had little to do with Reagan. They were in their 30's or younger for the most part and voted Democrat.

---

I guess it would be reasonable to start with Clinton, the first of four two-term Boomer-generation Presidents (yes, Obama technically counts).

---

That's correct. Boomers screwed up many things and as a Gen Xer I am no fan, just trying to be accurate that they had nothing to do with Reagan for good or bad.

---

Understand and agree but my point above is why I started there since the context matters.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'm done with this argument. SS is good until 2035.

---

You know that this isn't reassuring to those of us planning to retire in the late 2040's, right?

---

We are all screwed. The trajectory is unsustainable and will affect us all. The standard of living is going down for everyone.

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'm done with this argument. SS is good until 2035.

---

You know that this isn't reassuring to those of us planning to retire in the late 2040's, right?

---

We are all screwed. The trajectory is unsustainable and will affect us all. The standard of living is going down for everyone.

---

I am always curious why people believe that and if it can be hedged against that outcome. Will passive income through investments become unavailable? What prevent even the top earners now from continuing a decent standard of living? Will the recession just be too wide spread?

Tom Fox said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'm done with this argument. SS is good until 2035.

---

You know that this isn't reassuring to those of us planning to retire in the late 2040's, right?

---

We are all screwed. The trajectory is unsustainable and will affect us all. The standard of living is going down for everyone.

---

I am always curious why people believe that and if it can be hedged against that outcome. Will passive income through investments become unavailable? What prevent even the top earners now from continuing a decent standard of living? Will the recession just be too wide spread?

---

You are correct. There will always be wealth inequality and wealth concentration. Even if GDP growth doesn't keep pace with population growth, some will be better off. On average, we will be poorer than we would have been; we will be poorer as a nation. Slower GDP growth relative to population growth reduces per capita GDP, implying less economic output per person on average. But "poorer" depends on how wealth is distributed.

Logos Stick said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'm done with this argument. SS is good until 2035.

---

You know that this isn't reassuring to those of us planning to retire in the late 2040's, right?

---

We are all screwed. The trajectory is unsustainable and will affect us all. The standard of living is going down for everyone.

---

I am always curious why people believe that and if it can be hedged against that outcome. Will passive income through investments become unavailable? What prevent even the top earners now from continuing a decent standard of living? Will the recession just be too wide spread?

---

You are correct. There will always be wealth inequality and wealth concentration. Even if GDP growth doesn't keep pace with population growth, some will be better off. On average, we will be poorer than we would have been; we will be poorer as a nation. Slower GDP growth relative to population growth reduces per capita GDP, implying less economic output per person on average. But "poorer" depends on how wealth is distributed.

---

I agree. I thought you were saying it would be a complete collapse. That is was terrifies me. Because how do you hedge against that?

Tom Fox said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'm done with this argument. SS is good until 2035.

---

You know that this isn't reassuring to those of us planning to retire in the late 2040's, right?

---

We are all screwed. The trajectory is unsustainable and will affect us all. The standard of living is going down for everyone.

---

I am always curious why people believe that and if it can be hedged against that outcome. Will passive income through investments become unavailable? What prevent even the top earners now from continuing a decent standard of living? Will the recession just be too wide spread?

---

You are correct. There will always be wealth inequality and wealth concentration. Even if GDP growth doesn't keep pace with population growth, some will be better off. On average, we will be poorer than we would have been; we will be poorer as a nation. Slower GDP growth relative to population growth reduces per capita GDP, implying less economic output per person on average. But "poorer" depends on how wealth is distributed.

---

I agree. I thought you were saying it would be a complete collapse. That is was terrifies me. Because how do you hedge against that?

---

I don't think you can if the nuclear economic collapse were to happen. All bets are off as it would be global. Would think WW3 gets ignited.

For the record. I am optimistic and don't subscribe to that thinking.

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Mega Lops said:

---

I'm not reading the 6 pages this has generated. Probably someone has already pointed out that the concept of the quarter life crisis is like a 25 year old thing. So this thread itself is ironic because the OP proclaims this is a new thing but its not. At all.

It is coincidental that the idea is 25 years old and it's about 25 year olds realizing life sucks unless you figure out how to make it work for you. And the year now is 2025.

---

Im 42 and there was none of this whining when I was 25, or 25 years ago. So no, this is a recent development. The scenario where anyone *****ed and whined and made excuses for how hard life is and how tough they have it compared to everyone before them in the history of mankind is something that started recently, within the last 5, maybe 10 years. I never once heard this **** when I was starting out, before, or for a long time after. Not once.

Now suddenly we have a generation of victims who don't like having to work for anything. Life is too hard. Oh Noes! Poor babies! Suck it up and work for your **** and stop your excuses and blame.

---

I think social media has made it more public than when you or I were 25. We complained to our spouse or friends some, but certainly not to anyone older nor our boss at work and the world didn't hear about it.