Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Are you experienced?

Yeah I've had it. 

If I sell annuities, I take in payments obviously, and then invest them.  If I invest them in T Bills, they still have value, right?  On maturity, I get my money plus some interest.

The SSTF is something akin to an annuity, they take in money and invest it in special Treasuries, and when they mature, they get the money plus interest.

I may be missing something, I think the SSTF is a real thing, with real value, that when it runs out becomes a serious problem.

The difference is that you and the Federal Government are two separate entities so if you see me an annuity and invest the money you get from me into T-Bills those are an actual investment that you have made in a distinct entity that owes the money back to you with interest.  

The Federal Government and the Federal Government are NOT separate entities, they are one and the same so the relevant comparison is this:

•  @Cincydawg sells an annuity to @medinabuckeye1 
• Cincy creates a file folder in which he places the money he got from Medinabuckeye , he labels this folder "MBAnnuity Trust Fund"
• Cincy decides he wants a boat as big or bigger than @847badgerfan so he takes $500,000 out of the "MBAnnuity Trust Fund" and replaces it with a note that says "Cincy owes $500,000 to this file folder".  
• Cincy decides he wants a car cooler than @Honestbuckeye so he takes another $500,000 out of the "MBAnnuity Trust Fund" and replaces it with another note that says "Cincy owes $500,000 to this file folder."

When annuity distributions exceed annuity revenues Cincy can't pay those with the notes.  

If you STILL want to count the imaginary trust fund ok.  There are two different reported debt figures.  One is right around 100% of GDP currently and the other is substantially higher, around 125% of GDP IIRC.  If you look close, the first is "publicly held debt" and the second is "total debt".  AFIAK the difference is the debt held by the various Trust Funds*.  

*There are at least four:

• OASI Trust Fund is for the portion of SS dedicated to Old Age and Survivor Income
• DI Trust Fund is for the portion of SS dedicated to Disability Income
• HI Trust Fund is for the portion of Medicare not tied in with purchased plans
• SMI Trust Fund is for the portion of Medicare tied in with purchased plans.  

#1 is in major trouble and even if you treat the "trust fund" as legitimate, it will be exhausted in the next ~10 years.  

#2 is fine so long as you treat the "trust fund" as legitimate.  

#3 is in some trouble but that is only true if you assume that Medicare Expenditures beyond the ability of this fund to pay will continue to be paid from other Governmental revenues.  If not then this one is a catastrophe.  

#4 is statutorily fine.  Rates are set to be self-sustaining.  

I still don't get it.  The SSTF has been redeeming Treasuries for decades and paying out the monies as benefits.  The money going in is "real", and the money coming out is "real", just as with an annuity.

And I think it also real that when the SSTF runs dry, SS payments will have to be cut to about 75%, UNLESS Congress does something.  Maybe it doesn't matter and is just linguistics.

The SSTF is "real" but it's not "meaningful". 

Think about it this way. 

My wife and I split up some of our household bills/payments. One that is very seasonal, and seems to be in a secular increase due to rising costs generally here in CA over time, is electrical. It can be $100 in the dead of winter and $400+ in the summer due to AC, and it seems to get worse every year. 

So let's say that my wife contributes in our household for the electrical bill. She doesn't like that lumpy cost when it gets crazy expensive in the summer, so let's say that instead of paying the actual amount every month, she'll just give me $150/month for electrical and anything that isn't used goes into the Household Electrical Trust Fund (HETF). That way when the bill is below $150, we've got growing assets, that we can use to draw on during those few super hot summer months when we're running the AC a bunch. 

Well, it would be silly for us to just put that money in a savings account or under a mattress, right? It should probably be in an interest-bearing account! So I offer her a deal... I'll sell her Brad's Bonds that will be held in the HETF and not only will I pay them back when needed, they'll be earning 5% interest. I'm such a swell guy!

And so, every month that she gives me more than the electric bill costs, I give her a Brad's Bond for the difference. I then take the money she gave me and spend it on beer. It's gone. Because I'm a profligate spender and can't let it sit in my pocket, much like our federal government.

And since that money is already spent, when we get to summer months and I need to redeem those Brad's Bonds to her, I use cash advances from my credit card to come up with the money. Because where else am I going to get it? I didn't get a second job. 

So this keeps going. And every year when the payments from her are larger than the bill, I only apply as much of that excess as I need to pay the minimum payment on the credit card, not to draw down the balance, and spend the rest on beer. So my credit card balance just keeps growing and growing, but from her perspective everything is "fine" because as far as she can see, I keep redeeming the Brad's Bonds. 

In this case, our HETF would absolutely be real, but would you say that this was prudent financial planning? Would you say that our household finances are in good shape? Would you say that each time she needs to draw down the HETF and redeem a Brad's Bond, she should be happy about it because although she's getting paid 5% interest, the money is coming from a credit card that "we" as a household will eventually need to pay off at much higher interest? 

That's the SSTF. Yes, it's real. It's a real tool that serves to obfuscate the problem and make Americans think that the problem isn't a big deal until the day the SSTF runs out. 

Exactly. Let's say that today, Congress wrote a bill doing the following and the President signs it:

• Immediately dissolves the SSTF and defaults on it. Zero. Gone. Bye bye.
• Enacts that benefit cuts will not be tied to the elimination of the SSTF and benefits will proceed to be paid according to normal schedules in perpetuity.

I'd argue, and I know @medinabuckeye1 would argue, that from the standpoint of the federal budget, that absolutely zero has materially changed.

Trillions of dollars of T-Bills in the SSTF, instantly gone, and not a damn thing changes.

Going a little deeper on this revenues vs expenditures question, here are all of the years since 1930 in which the Federal Deficit was >5% of GDP ranked.  Then I've added Federal Revenue as a percentage of GDP for that year:

• 29.6%, 1943, 11.8%
• 22.2%, 1944, 19.5%
• 21.0%, 1945, 19.8%
• 14.7%, 2020, 16.0%
• 13.9%, 1942, 8.8%
• 12.1%, 2021, 17.2%
• 9.8%, 2009, 14.5%
• 8.7%, 2010, 14.4%
• 8.4%, 2011, 14.8%
• 7.0%, 1946, 17.3%
• 6.7%, 2012, 15.1%
• 6.3%, 2023, 16.2%
• 5.9%, 1983, 16.5%
• 5.8%, 1934, 4.4%
• 5.4%, 2022, 19.0%
• 5.4%, 1936, 4.7%

Way upthread @OrangeAfroMan tried to suggest that this problem has taken decades to create.  Also, @Gigem asked about causes of deficits more recently.  

I think I've come up with a better way to answer these questions.  The list above is the 16 years from 1929-2023 in which the Federal Deficit was >5% of GDP but lets do some analysis:

First lets take out the WWII years because even though none of us were in a position to decide then and you might personally disagree, "we" as a country clearly felt that it was "worth it" to fight the war.  Then you are left with:

• 14.7%, 2020, 16.0%
• 12.1%, 2021, 17.2%
• 9.8%, 2009, 14.5%
• 8.7%, 2010, 14.4%
• 8.4%, 2011, 14.8%
• 6.7%, 2012, 15.1%
• 6.3%, 2023, 16.2%
• 5.9%, 1983, 16.5%
• 5.8%, 1934, 4.4%
• 5.4%, 2022, 19.0%
• 5.4%, 1936, 4.7%

Next lets eliminate ONE year each for some major issues addressed by our Country, specifically (chronological):

• Take out the 5.8% deficit in 1934 to address the Great Depression
• Take out the 5.9% deficit in 1983 to address the stagflation crisis of the 70's/80's
• Take out the 9.8% deficit in 2009 to address the credit bubble collapse
• Take out the 14.7% deficit in 2020 to address COVID

Before I move on, note that this suggests that the credit bubble and COVID were BIGGER than the Great Depression.  Also note that the size of the deficit absorbed to deal with the crisis keeps growing.  Back in the 1930's it was 5.8%.  In ~50 years it only grew to 5.9% but then in ~25 years it nearly doubled to 9.8% then in ~12 years it grew by half-again to 14.7%.  This suggests either than the Great Depression was less of a big deal than Stagflation, Credit Bubble, or COVID.  That is silly.  

That leaves us with:

• 12.1%, 2021, 17.2%
• 8.7%, 2010, 14.4%
• 8.4%, 2011, 14.8%
• 6.7%, 2012, 15.1%
• 6.3%, 2023, 16.2%
• 5.4%, 2022, 19.0%
• 5.4%, 1936, 4.7%

We are left with seven years of "unexplained" deficits in excess of 5% of GDP.  One was during the Great Depression.  The other six were:

• The last three years (2021-2023), and
• Six of the last fourteen years (2010-2012 and 2021-2023).  

Depending on your source the 2024 and 2025 deficits are projected at different exact amounts but I don't see anybody projecting <5% of GDP.  If we run deficits >5% of GDP in both 2024 and 2025 then those will add to the above list and we'll move to eight of the last 16 years with deficits >5% of GDP.  

This is absolutely a modern and very recent phenomenon.  It started with the response to the credit bubble collapse which was to shovel money into the economy then cooled off for a few years (2013-2019) then heated right back up with COVID and the shoveling has continued ever since.