Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Confused by the Social Security trust fund?

Kevin Drum offers a guide for the perplexed.

By Ezra Klein  |  August 19, 2010; 4:48 PM ET
Categories:  Social Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is Obama FDR or Hoover? Or neither?
Next: Reconciliation

Comments

well, here's what the Trust Fund is literally (i.e., what's in it) http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/04/actual-list-of-social-security-trust.html

Bruce Webb is the go to person on this stuff, by the way

Posted by: bdballard | August 19, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Note that the $2 trillion in the fund as of end of fiscal 2008, plus another $100 billion in 2009 all got eaten up in Georgie's $400 billion a year reported deficit, and that doesn't include the off the books cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because those funds were accounted for in bonds and certificates of indebtedness they are Government Debts, funded by the full faith and credit of the Government. NOT paying them is a violation of the Constitution.

Now the only question for the Republicans is how they keep their party's word.

Posted by: ceflynline | August 19, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Ezra;

Together, you and Krugman make a great comedy team. You can see everyone is puzzled-your spoof on the special, "implicit" agreement is hilarious, but goes over their heads.

There is no trust fund-just a yawning pit which is called a "trust fund" by those laugh-a-minute spenders on Capitol Hill.

There is no trust, and no fund.

You can't make this kind of quality stuff up without a wild imagination.

Oh, you did. Cheers

Posted by: Towson_Tiger | August 19, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

The Trust fund was vacuumed-out by the Bush Tax Cuts. Sexy hydraulic action here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tts2uTWt6e8

Posted by: Lee_A_Arnold | August 20, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

The problem with our polity is that people like Towson_Tiger find his "counter argument" convincing. It's all of the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I variety and yet somehow it seems to work on the electorate as well as actual facts, logic, and appeals to morality.

It's the argument of a mob: any position is good as long as you can point to others that hold it. This being so, all your position needs in its defense is that you continue to hold it. Don't abandon the mob.

Posted by: dfhoughton | August 20, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company