Social Security must balance its books. Because Social Security is funded by a trust fund that was insisted upon, by FDR and the rest of Congress. The surpluses from Social Security will be used each year to cover other expenses of the federal government. All the money got spent and then some leaving no money to invest in assets to create a trust fund. All of finance is a claim, a paper claim, on assets. What is real is whether or not you'll be paid back and the US government is good for its money. And we're lucky to have that much money in our trust fund. Every lie we tell ourselves incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt must be paid. Tonight's resolution reads given Social Security's nearly three trillion dollar trust fund the system cannot add to the federal deficit. Arguing for the affirmative, Professor Teresa Ghilarducci. Teresa, Teresa. Please come to the stage. Arguing for the negative will be me, so I hereby recuse myself from moderating and hand that job over to Reason Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie, Nick please come to the stage. Thank you very much Gene. I'm gonna keep my eye on you. I told Teresa earlier, you know that you're a home court advantage but I'm with her as the ref, that the the ref is against you Gene. So keep it clean. We want to see your hands where we can see them. Okay. So many of you have been here before. This is an Oxford style debate. Teresa is gonna go first. Make sure if—is the voting closed? Okay, so if you haven't voted, go to Sohovote.com and vote. What? We're gonna close it in like 30 seconds here. Teresa is going to talk for up to 15 minutes and make her argument in favor of the proposition. Gene, we'll give 15 minutes. They'll have 5 minutes of rebuttal to each other, and then we're gonna open it up to you guys, 30 minutes of Q&A. Let's have an interesting, wide-ranging conversation about Social Security deficits and what we're gonna do to screw over Dave Smith's kid. All right, so Teresa, please. Hey, that's not fair. I'm not the first up Nick and Dave were the first up in their negative views of Social Security So I am here to persuade you to change your mind. So To vote for my argument. You'll be voting. Yes. You'll be voting YES for the affirmative Which is given Social Security's nearly three thousand three trillion Trust fund the system cannot add to the federal deficit that's affirmative I'm going to argue it and you will vote for me at the end of this time despite the eight wrong things Dave said about Social Security Another eight in the last 30 seconds, but he said seventeen funny things, so he's forgiven Social Security can't by law And by precedent and by culture add to the federal deficit and the federal debt medic can food stamps can the unemployment insurance fund can tax cuts can a War with Iran can but not Social Security by law Social Security must balance its books Because Social Security is funded by a trust fund that was insisted upon by FDR and the rest of Congress Republicans and Democrats now a trust fund funding mechanism means that the fund collects the revenues and then pays out the benefits, but the calculations are based on what's called an actuarial funded standard, which means that current and projected revenue is Set to equal and it's always titrated over time to equal projected liabilities the United States stands alone from all other developed and developing countries By using a very conservative Actuarial standard it projects out 75 years rather than the standard 35 years So at the very beginning it was meant to pay for itself and it was meant to do so in a very conservative way Social Security liabilities, of course are the promised benefits the Internet's determined by the number of beneficiaries that's key because that goes back to David's baby and the amount of benefit generosity The administrative costs are also a liability, but they're tiny It's a much more efficient system than the 401 K and the IRA you're suckered into having but that's another issue now Social Security Actuaries know what the benefit generosity is and they could also count they count the babies that are born and they project that within 62 to 70 years Many of those babies most of them will be collecting Social Security benefits So the calculation of the projected liabilities are easy the fact that there is a baby boomer does not faze the actuaries even though everybody now is throwing up their hands and saying There's a generational tsunami. It is not an issue in the Social Security trust fund the benefit generosity the fact that people are living longer is Also not an issue in terms of the Social Security funding all those were predicted and part of this 75 year projected actuarial standard funding it was brilliant and Responsible to Pay for every promised benefit we had a trust fund that was quite small up into 80 from 1985 and then thinking ahead again the Social Security actuaries projecting ahead said we're going to have a lot of Babies, we collect your Social Security right about now and so will advance fund for their retirement And so taxes were raised much more to cut then to cover current benefits and that is why the Trust fund is now almost three trillion dollars and why now that started about a year and a half ago We are redeeming those bonds to pay for retirements now I would think that all conservatives and libertarians would like this kind of small-bore government program Would want all of government to be run like Social Security you anticipate the liabilities They're pretty small Social Security benefits are among the small of any Development any developed country and that you would want rules to make sure that it pays for itself advance funding Social Security like we did in 1984 is like we are supposed to do to plan for our own retirement while we work we save We invest in the private market and then when time comes we redeem our pension or 401ks or IRA with the assets that we have when we reach retirement age and for most of us a Big part of our assets are government bonds the same assets that are in the Social Security trust fund Now currently as we said truck the Social Security trust fund holds 2.8 trillion dollars In government bonds. Thanks to this 1984 plan that means that even though half of us don't have any pension or a 401 K or an arrey or any kind of retirement plan Can I repeat that half of us don't have anything but social security we all own Some government bonds. We're all investors through the Social Security system Now through the combination of tax revenues and earnings and principles from the trust fund Social Security is estimated to be solvent into 2035. So remember that number 2035 after that If the system doesn't get any more revenues then or doesn't get any revenues now starting right now The results will be horrible Social Security will only pay 77% of promised benefits That's you me our relatives now These will be tragic consequences But it's stark proof that the Social Security system can't add to the deficit or debt because it pays for itself now Let me go a little bit deeper when we through Social Security invest in government bonds the government creates an intergovernmental debt in Contrast when China buys our governmental bonds, it creates an external debt Which China redeems its bonds US taxpayers indeed pay them back with interest coming from general revenues when the Social Security? Administration redeems its bonds another part of the government transfers assets to another part of government It's like the $20 bill the $20 you borrowed from your spouse this morning The nation as your household has the same wealth and created no debt as it did before so because Americans buy government debt And there's a transfer there is no change in the debt and the deficit so why do smart people? Think wrong things like Social Security adds to the budget deficit and debt It's because of confused accounting and because of politics so Dean are sympathetic If you think Social Security can add to the deficit in debt, you've been misled First the accounting confusions the deficit Control Act of 1984 required that this Congressional Budget Office That's the office the CBO that produces outlooks for Congress It required it to an accounting convention that contradicts Established social security law on practice instead of the CBO basing their projections on current law Which show that Social Security can create no deficit or debt the law passed under President Reagan? Requires the CBO and what it ever does when it reports to Congress to assume that Social Security can draw from the general budget then that will happen in 2035 and Not cut benefits, but that isn't what the law says and that's not what will happen. So in its debt projections It adds trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars to the debt, but that's just an accounting mistake the law bars Social Security from taking from general Revenues now second is the accounting trick of the unified budget which Jean might argue makes it look like Social Security Creates a deficit as I said Social Security is now redeeming Treasury bonds held in the trust fund So we see a transfer from one part of the government to another If Social Security is unified in the budget its included in the whole budget then Though it only can spend what it takes in it looks as if the system is drawing from general revenues But only looking at the Social Security now here in Soho in 2019 It looks like it's causing the deficit but because it's cashing in its bonds, but it ignores all the other time It was in surplus and made the deficit look a lot smaller Arguing that Social Security is causing a deficit is just as wrong as saying that a retiree who lives on five thousand dollars a month Gets $100 $100 from a part-time job and gets four thousand nine hundred dollars from redeeming their treasury bonds in their retirement fund is a retiree and deficit because they earn only $100 but spend five thousand But that household is not living beyond its means it's not creating a deficit or debt in modern societies We save to pay for expenses later Now a related mistake is arguing that since Social Security can be viewed in the unified budget It masks the true side size of the federal deficit, but everyone literally everyone making decisions about spending Is fully aware of the legal and economic relationship of Social Security in the rest of the budget the unified budget might create might include Social Security trust fund on the ledger but the Social Security deficits are not added to the debt and therefore Social Security trust funds don't Make the deficit either smaller or larger now here are the politics when I told people I was participating in this debate One was a physics student. They said really everyone knows Social Security can't contribute to the deficit Benefits are going to be cut if we don't raise revenue. So why are we having this debate? is it just are we having a debate this nice Monday summer afternoon because of the counting I Suspect we're having this debate for deeply political reasons There It's very clear that There are many people that want Social Security to look bad and bad is creating deficits in debt In an october interview the usually careful leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell Revealed the political use of the canard that Social Security can add to the deficit in a TV interview He's tried to shift attention away from the Trump 2017 tax cuts And moved it towards costly entitlements. That's the code for Social Security Medicare and Medicaid He said that they were the real drivers of the death Not the tax cuts and calls for Social Security and other entitlements to be adjusted the demographics of the future Republicans in particular in particular have always aimed to cut Social Security out of a general ideological opposition to government programs, but the Idea the argument the proposition that Social Security as to the deficit is wrong. So in conclusion Social Security can't add to the deficit because it's designed By law to be self-contained the reason why past congresses and presidents insisted on the actuarial based trust fund funding first for Social Security And then for Medicare was to create a framework for a discipline Congress and it worked Social Security benefits are extremely low Benefits can't be raised to penny without raising Social Security revenue first and if it isn't Social Security Who and what can add to the deficit and debt? Well, they've already told us to be sure It's the 2017 Trump tax cuts and the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans They're projected to add one to two Trillion dollars to the debt. It's about 164 billion unto the deficit Large deficits and debt will result from these sugar-daddy of tax cuts in 2017 It's bad policy in flush times in good economic times like we have now To not cushion for the bad times that's bad policy. But Social Security cushioned for the bad times which are now people living long and also many people retiring so Congress can add to the deficit and debt through every other program and tax provision in the federal budget but not through Social Security Social Security is off limits every penny paid now and in the future must be paid for Every penny paid out and every penny promised must be paid for with money coming in now and in the future Perhaps we should have another debate do deficits really matter, but tonight our debate As far as I'm concerned as far as you might be concerned And I hope you are concerned that you'll vote for me for the affirmative is Settled Social Security can't possibly add to the deficit Thank you very much Teresa Aguilar Gillard, uchi and now taking the negative proposition. Mr. Jean Epstein No, thanks. Let me begin by quoting Sir Thomas More Who said back in the sixteenth century? If the earth is flat could Parliament make it round if it be round? Could the king's command? Flatten it. Well applying that rhetorical question to the 21st century The earth is round and nothing our government can do or say can flatten it Similarly, even though the government might continue to declare that. It's in possession of a nearly three trillion dollar trust fund Nothing it can do or say can summon that trust fund into being That's because the trust fund doesn't exist And since there is no trust fund the resolution fails there is no trust fund to cover the cost of social security any more than there was a trust fund to cover the cost of spending on the government's Wars since the dollars spent on the wars can add to the federal deficit so to Condole are spent on payouts from the Social Security system On the surface at least you might think that those in the know are on Theresa's side consider the coverage of Social Security's finances in the Wall Street Journal which has a reputation for Grasping fiscal realities an April 22nd story in the journal begins by referring to the trust fund Though as though it does exist the lead sentence reads quote Social Security's costs are expected to exceed its income in 2020 Forcing the government to dip into its nearly three trillion dollar trust fund to cover benefits unquote based on that statement It sounds as though Teresa must be right as long as the program is able to keep dipping into its fund of nearly three children To cover benefits it is indeed Self-funded and it can't be adding to a federal deficit But as a sign of the doublethink That plagues so many accounts of this topic the same article goes on to assert that Social Security Has in fact been contributing to the deficit we read quote that Rising Social Security costs have contributed to larger deficits that are set to exceed one trillion a year starting in 2020 unquote notice from the wording of that statement that Social Security will not only contribute to the deficit in 2020 it is already been doing so the same kind of inconsistency plagues the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office Which puts out reports that warn of rising deficits and the cost of Social Security as a major Contributor and yet it too uses the term trust fund as though the trust fund actually exists the reason for the glaring inconsistency is fairly simple these establishment sources feel obligated to acknowledge that there is a trust fund if the government claims there is In but but the pretense is dropped once they turn their attention to the real life issue of soaring federal deficits in Similar fashion had the king in Thomas More's time actually declared that the world is flat Established sources would no doubt have given due acknowledgment to the Kings viewpoint but when it came to the serious matter of Navigating the globe in the high seas, the pretense would also have been dropped in 2013 the fact that the trust fund doesn't exist got exposed for all the world to see Except that few noticed it that was when the Republican Congress was refusing to raise the debt limit Which meant that the government was facing difficulty paying its bills President Obama released a warning that if the debt limit wasn't raised Social Security checks might not be sent out the warning exposed an obvious fraud Wasn't there supposed to be a Social Security trust fund? And if so How could there be any concern about sending out the Social Security checks a trust fund if it exists consists of assets like stocks and bonds So if the need arose why not just sell off some of the assets and cover the payouts in the in that way Yet the media to Obama's warning seriously without Realizing that he was as good as admitting that there is no trust fund To better grasp why there is no trust fund it helps to understand how such a fund could have been created in the early 1980s the baby boomers were screaming into the labor markets and retirees were collecting Social Security checks and they were not so numerous the payroll tax that is earmarked for Social Security checks, which had container ating surpluses the surpluses could have been invested in the stocks and bonds of other advanced economies including Bonds issued but creditworthy foreign governments as well as in the domestic US market in the same way other countries maintain sovereign wealth funds for example The government of Norway has a fund valued at more than 1 trillion with a portion of the assets currently invested in high-tech stocks in the US Had these investments been made as the surpluses came in They would indeed have been a trust fund with real assets And these those assets could gradually be sold off to fund social security This would have meant that payouts to beneficiaries would not have boosted federal deficits The system would have been self-funded just as Teresa claims it is But that's exactly what did not happen Instead the surpluses from Social Security were used each year to cover other expenses of the federal government all the money got spent and then some leaving no money to invest in assets to create a trust fund and At the same time an accounting fraud had been engineered as the surpluses were generated Bonds were created technically referred to as general accounting series or GIS securities Matching the surpluses in the same dollar amounts the GA s securities have been put into the account of the Social Security trustees the debt is also known as Intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself So when the Wall Street Journal refers to the Social Security system Dipping into the trust fund to cover benefits. It is really talking about an exercise that will only keep bureaucrats busy Here's how that exercise works to meet its obligations the Social Security Administration submits the GS s securities for payment to the US Treasury Say the amount is 50 billion. These bonds are liabilities to the Treasury Just like all Treasury bonds are that 50 billion will be an outlay of the Treasury in the same way that the Treasury makes any other outlay the Treasury will cut a check to the Social Security Administration For 50 billion and then Social Security will use this 50 billion to cover its obligations to its beneficiaries but obviously the transfer of 50 billion from the Treasury to Social Security is no different in result from a 50 billion transfer from the Treasury to the Pentagon or to the agricultural department or to any other agency of government? That needs to pay its bills and there is no trust fund for the Pentagon or AG Department since the fiscal result for Social Security payouts is Exactly the same the trust fund is an accounting fiction by analogy Imagine your parents give you what they claim to be a trust fund worth 1 million dollars You find that instead of being a rich kid holding 1 million in stocks and bonds You have been given 1 trillion in IOUs signed by then When you object they explain that this is intra personal debt money. They owe themselves Similar to the Treasury's intragovernmental debt money the government owes itself You'll be tempted to tell them that what they call a trust fund has funds that can't quite be trusted Of course the difference is that your parents don't have the power to borrow like the US government does but if they two are living beyond their means Then payouts to you for the IOUs in the trust fund also add to their deficit or Imagine a private firm running its pension fund in this same way Workers contribute to the pension fund and are told by the firm that their surplus Contributions are being invested in assets it then comes to light that the company's actually Spent all the surpluses while creating IOUs against the firm's own revenue, the firm would be criminally guilty of fraud the US government did the same thing the main difference being that it spent the surpluses on its foreign wars and the other difference being that the federal government's Criminality is exempt from the law legal points have been made about the fact that Social Security holds these GS securities while agencies like the Pentagon and the agricultural Department Don't the argument. Is that the existence of these securities? Guarantees the Social Security payouts will be made while there is no such guarantee For agencies that lack the GSS securities. So let's call these securities legally binding memos to the file But it makes no sense to call them a trust fund and makes an existence of the legal. Memos cannot prevent Payouts from being cut at any time the Congressional Budget Office Actually takes pains to explain all that I've just said in the sea bolts January release on the 10-year budget outlook There is a discussion of the Social Security trust fund that pretends the trust fund exists Well at the same time dropping the pretense quo the trust fund is an asset for the individual program such as Social Security but a lot but a liability for the rest of the the resources to redeem a trust-fund securities and therefore pay for benefits or other spending in some Future year must be generated through taxes income from other governmental sources or borrowing from the public Unquote as the SIBO points out then redemption of the Trust Fund securities must be generated through taxes income from other governmental sources, or Borrowing from the public and of course that applies to all spending by government since all spending can only be generated through taxes income from other governmental sources or Borrowing from the public the see both and nods in the legal direction But still delicately concludes as follows quote Trust funds have an important legal meaning in that their balances are a measure of the amounts that the government has Legal authority to spend for certain purposes under current law But they have little relevance in an economic or budgetary sense Little relevance is of course a bureaucratic euphemism for no relevance at all in her essay in Forbes Theresa invert Inadvertently makes the C boson point she writes quote if you are wondering if the trust fund is real Here are facts to judge for yourself workers do two things with their FICA taxes We pay current benefits and we say by buying US Treasury bonds like many wealthy people do unquote Already, it is a stretch to say that the baby boomer has made a conscious decision to buy those bonds have they actually been asked They might have realized that it was a much better idea to invest the surpluses in Outside assets to prevent the money from being grabbed and spent by the government but what Teresa ads next gives the game away Quote when we threw Social Security free rights invest in government bonds the government creates intragovernmental debt She then provides as a source that defines intragovernmental debt a link to a source and according to that source in Governmental debt is the portion of the federal debt Oh to other agencies the source continues by owning Treasuries, they the agencies Transfer their excess cash to the general fund where it is spent Note the source says where it is spent not where it's invested in Assets to create a trust fund So according to Teresa's own source And just as a Seaver points out redemption of the trust fund securities must be generated through taxes income from other governmental sources Or borrowing from the public According to a former CBO budget director the federal government's budget is on the road to hell The adds quote there is no polite way to describe what the world's largest economy has placed itself on a trajectory that looks like a third-world debt crisis the Cost of Social Security now account for a record twenty three point seven percent of all federal outlays and are due to keep rising Faster than either total federal outlays our gross domestic product That's why the SIBO constantly cites it as one key reason why federal deficits are running out of control Although it's far from the only reason Teresa and I could talk about ways to tame the deficit since we are both Bleeding hearts were both concerned about the plight of the elderly who have planned they rounded lives around elder care entitlements including Social Security Medicare and Medicaid But unfortunately, we're bogged down in a myth She would still have us believe that Social Security is playing no active role in keeping the budget on that road to hell But that's exactly what it has been doing. Let me conclude with a quote from the HBO miniseries Chernobyl Every lie we tell ourselves incurs a debt to the truth sooner or later that debt must be paid Thanks Thank You Jay Chernobyl is a is a comedy right? Chernobyl is a comedy Make sure that okay Teresa you have five minutes to respond You can either sit or you can stand either whatever but you can't do both so choose wisely I Haven't heard Sir Thomas Moore as a source for public policy since I was at Notre Dame Sure, absolutely So let's say in 1990 You inherited real assets you got some stock from some real companies you got $20,000 worth of Enron stock General Motors stock You got of stock and some real American companies like Kmart and Montgomery Ward's But you did not get any of those real assets called a government bond right in 19 in 2019 which were real assets the government bonds or Stock in Enron GM the old company Kmart in monkey Ward's just because the asset portfolio of Social Security is in Conservative and it's in government bonds the most valuable asset on the planet When the when hell really happens in the financial sector where does everybody including the Norwegians? Go they come here and buy our bonds So we as American have two trillion of those bonds and they will be paid I'm reminded jr. Reminded me of President George W Bush who went to In his campaign his losing campaign to privatize Social Security Went to the to the government agency that held these bonds in there on paper. It's a show in their lockbox another accounting Metaphor an illustration and said huh? Just like gene. Those aren't real assets. Haha. You're like he does The government official is standing there looking a little bit nervous within five minutes Secretary Treasury snow went out into the world fear and said he didn't really mean it He really didn't mean it. But gene said what George Bush said these are real assets the world Norwegians we really will pay them back So what is in the trust fund is very real at all. They are contingent claim. They are claims on Future generations just like the stock in Amazon is it is saying when I redeem this? It's a bond. I will expect the money to come from profits from workers from somewhere all of Finance is a claim a paper claim on assets What is real is whether or not you'll be paid back and the US government is good For its money and we're lucky to have that much money in our trust fund in terms of the deficit it does really matter whether or not that deficit adds the debt that will drain your household or your nation to pay it back if we owed all of our debt to say China and We were obligated To pay it back Then we would drain productivity GDP per capita would fall But if we borrow from each other like the Japanese have for 20 years their debt-to-gdp Ratio is beyond any textbook? Definition of what is sustainable its sustainable because they borrow their debt is all internal Just as you borrow from your spouse, perhaps you borrowed $20,000 from your spouse your household debt and deficit did not change if you borrowed from the Mafia You would have a very different Position and you might be on the road to hell is where I'm going to close now with the definition of real health and That would be if the 2035 We cut Social Security benefits which half of our population Depend on in their old age to stay in their house There'll be more people on the street along with Earl on David's Street. Um Living that way and that's true hell not an accounting entry About the deficit. Thank you Thank You Teresa I Do want to point out as somebody who was once married and lent money to my wife Or rather I borrowed money from her. It was a lot like being borrowing money from the Mafia but Jane you have five minutes Got a moderator really editorialized as a lad. I don't usually go but I mean don't count all moderation is on a biography chain. I First of all, I don't I I completely agree with Theresa that it would have been a bad idea to invest in in Enron Obviously as Teresa knows you've got a very good book about retirement planning if you've bought, you know, the sp500 You would have done very well since 1990. If you'd bought the world stock index. You would have done very well The Norwegians are actually invested in our high-tech stocks at the moment But all that's all really by the way the the point that that Teresa herself Acknowledges is that this debt is? intra Governmental debt, and she herself provides a link to a source that explains Intra governmental debt what the government owes itself and the source I didn't quote from the source completely The source continues the cruellest that she herself links to to explain this intragovernmental debt by owning Treasuries they the agencies transfer their excess cash to the general fund where it is spent I Read that already it was spent now I assume that Teresa would have preferred a world in which the the Social Security so security actually would have been a locked box to use the term of Clinton and gore and And if they wanted they were aiming to balance the budget They would have bounced the budget but instead they raided the funds and they blew the money. I Would basically argue on their Foreign Wars because you could choose something else They would have spent it on, you know because obviously they just spent it but the Foreign Wars came up and they blew it and Cheney said You know deficits don't matter. So that's what happened. That's where they blew it. That's theories Well, so what did so then they created this intragovernmental debt? and and the source that Teresa herself Cites writes, of course one day they will redeem their Treasury notes for cash That is the people holding the interest The Social Security system will redeem that and the federal government will either need to raise Taxes or issue more debt to give the agencies the money they will need again That's the way the federal government spends money on everything they give that when the debt comes and they pay it that's Intragovernmental debt what the government owes to itself and what the government owes to itself is again what you might owe to yourself? It's not an asset and and that's why Whenever anybody gets real as in the case of The Wall Street Journal or the Congressional Budget Office They they blame the Social Security system For the rising debt, because the Social Security system is rising so quickly. I share I share Teresa's concern about the future I share it and then some and you know It's not gonna be it's not gonna kill people like Chernobyl but it is the road to hell and in fact in fact She's concerned about 2035 well, I suggest Teresa that you read the Congressional Budget Office projections for the next ten years But on the basis of plausible assumptions they show that it's possible that the cost of just servicing the debt Will will exceed a trillion dollars by 2028 servicing the debt But and that will be a 15 percent of the federal budget that the Vera budget will be spending more on Servicing the debt than it does on so-called defense So that's when they may start pulling the plug that that's psychological threshold of a truly in doubt right now It's about a little under 400 billion a year to service the debt, but the on the basis of conservative assumptions It could go up to trillion by 2028 and that's at a point where they could start cutting the benefits in the way that they usually do boost the inflation measure boost the age Tax more they could reduce benefits in lots of ways So I'm concerned just as Teresa is my contention Ironically is that by denying that the Social Security system is contribute to the deficit and by the way Medicaid all the other elder care programs are actually contributing even more. It's really the entire elder care package That is at risk There is a danger the federal government may pull the plug on a lot of old people You can end welfare as we know it potentially for 30 year olds You can't end l took your elder care as we know it for 75 year olds but that I fear is the direction in which we're going and that's partly because unfortunately, regrettably tragically people like Teresa choose to ignore the fact that Social Security is indeed a major problem in terms of the federal debt all the deficit Although by the way, I hasten to add that Medicaid and Medicare are even more problematic. Thanks Thank you very much, Jeanne, okay Yeah We are going to the audience question and answer period so please line up on the side of the lobby I'm going to take the moderators prerogative and ask two quick questions one of each Jean. Are you on Social Security? Yes Yeah, and so you are part of the problem you're adding to our deficit by your own logic Well, I actually was Donating while I was working. I was donating my Social Security check to people like you Nick So it's like exacta bases lights they only socially check Oliver Thanks, like reason but ever since I got fired from my job, and I don't know anything from that from the soul forum I figured I'm devoting a lot of time and energy to furthering what's gone But indeed I'm probably like one of those guys who's flying around warning people about global warming. Well leaving could be the moral Good the fact that I'm a hypocrite Should not necessarily invalidate my argument. There we go. And then for Teresa I guess and I just want to make sure of this is your position that intragovernmental debt is not real debt Use your microphone my position is that Social Security is Self-contained unlike the military budget or unlike Medicaid although you agree I mean that the money that has been raised and that was put in surplus has already been spent so The government is going to have to come up with that to replace that somewhere. That's right. Okay, okay let's go to the audience first question, please and I will be Epstein Ian in Ask a question. Don't make a statement. Okay? Thank you, I Don't Quite understand the question. So if Nick can you help me out? Jane did you want to quickly reprise your your trust fund analogy instead of investing in stocks and bonds I will stipulate for you to be said instead of investigating in an index fund which does generally yield returns over 10 20 year period They've created IO use to themselves Interpersonal intrapersonal debt. Okay. I got it so you would have preferred that we That we take from the future That the parents would have taken from the their children By by investing in those in the stock market and then redeeming it but that also means that you would have to resell those those stocks and bonds and The either the corporation would have to pay out of someplace. So it really is Immaterial to me and to the structure of Social Security whether or not in 1985 we started to invest in bonds Government bonds or we started to invest in this market completely immaterial. It was a political question why they didn't Okay next question As much as I abhor a social security and what it does to me Alas as much as Jean and I used to be friends I Have to acknowledge that Teresa is 100% correct? Resolution Do you? have a question or are you going to also go a Band for all seasons there might be a soliloquy that you want to pull out. Oh, no. No, please What is the question was simply one statement? So I'd like you to Teresa to Address two issues one is the Bugaboo of the intragovernmental debt The Social Security trust fund it's not per se without government it could be considered something like China or any other debtor and Also the statement by Obama which was brought up about not being able to pay and what he really meant Is that America would renege on its debts? Thank you, really? See I'll take the Obama first even Obama can make a mistake. And in fact when we had when we He was just you really read this audience wrong Even Saint Obama can make a mistake and it was proven to be mistaken because when we went through sequestration and they cut Every agency because of the way Social Security is set up there were no there were no cuts But that means the way Social Security is set up that when it doesn't have enough revenue coming in Benefits will be cut and that's not true of any other other agency except for the Highway Trust Fund and part of the Medicare Did you want to address the second point and which was? It was mental Janice yes, yes the intergovernmental debt. I feel like we're in public finance class the fact that one agency owes another agency the Treasury owes the US government I mean the u.s. Of Social Security Really was a device to keep Social Security benefits in check, right? That's the whole trust fund set up was a political framework To keep Social Security benefits in tech if we want to raise Social Security benefits Just like if we have to like go to Congress and fight for it if we want em so But the economic effect what let's say we're all economists now is very very different then if you borrow from your spouse or from the Mafia if it's if it's internal national debt between Each other or if it is an external debt and that has a very different economic effect. So that's that's good And Thompson You're not my friend or I still love you and and I want you to know that we've been getting personal is evening I mean, obviously Obama knew what he was talking about? he knew of course that The you know, the media wouldn't care. And of course Social Security is the third rail of American politics and that's of course why? Away, the payments were made. Clearly there would have been a massive rebellion And of course, basically that was good thing you don't as I keep saying you don't pull the plug on 75 year olds And so that was good and of course They had the political clout to make sure the social security pants were made not because of these bogus assets That that they held and I guess there's you do You agree that intragovernmental debt is a has a different economic effect than public debt. Well, in Chicago coming on no that is an accounting fraud in two inter-government metal debt is Exactly the same as my saying that I have intrapersonal debt. I owe a trillion dollars to myself That's an accounting fraud. There's no such thing as as assets of debt. It's it's a complete wash Unlike what you seem to have said ed. I forgot to correct you on that Look Social Security system is obviously part of the federal government and so we if we wiped away the intragovernmental debt Social Security isn't the only agency the hell's that the Operations of the budget would be exactly the same. The only difference would be this legal argument that because You know a legal argument that bad if I give my io u--'s to my son that That that's kind of a moral claim, but that's that's just a debt I owed to myself and that's clearly clearly a wash That's clearly which which knee would you break gene? When you collect on your own debt, would you go right right like a left leg? There are certain questions Nick puts you which I which can't be north dad. They should not even be entertained. Next question please sir Well, if the last question Aaron gene love each other. I'm Theresa's husband There is so much love there is so much love that dare speak its name in this room tonight at so Paul's A great lady. Absolutely, so The issue of how the federal government pays The debts that it knows whether that's to China or to Norway or to the Social Security trust fund so far we've only focused on Cutting benefits for Social Security. Why not raise revenues the deficit in 2018 84% of it can be attributed to the trope and Bush tax cuts or is that outside? I know if that's outside The scope is the maybe we seem to be focusing only on solving the social security Repayment for the money that it's given to the federal government by doing something within that system There's lots of ways the federal government could pay back well That's first of all, that's a very fair question And as I said if we can give up on the myth that Social Security is not adding to the deficit of course it is and when you talk about Paying China Peng. Whoever all I keep emphasizing. Is that is that Astok SIBO itself says there's no budgetary reality to the trust fund When the Treasury pays Social Security it's exactly the same transfer as when the Treasury pays the AG department Or the Pentagon or any other agency of government. It's exactly the same operation That's why the trust fund is an accounting fiction, but getting to your question Absolutely, we could discuss this if we could talk about revenues and expenses as the Congressional Budget Office Puts out a whole series of programs and plans for taming the soaring deficit the budget is on the road to hell I will briefly say to you that that the tax cuts imposed by the government clearly exhausted The deficit but had the tax cuts not been made the deficit and the debt Would still be a very serious problem. It just would have cost phone for a few years There's much there's many more painful things that we have to do to tame the debt One of those things is probably to rethink the whole concept of a government handout That also goes to the rich the the only the government can think of a charity plan to help the rich Private-sector charities just want to target it to those who need the government wants to give it to everybody. That's dumb Thank you next question So I was worried there for a second because Husband almost asked my questions, but I didn't quite hear it again, sir. So, let me see if I can try Welcome welcome. Thanks Jane. All right, so because as I was listening to this I got very excited because it seems to me that Jean Epstein is in effect Advocating a tax hike and so this is something we can get together on because if Social Security is adding to the deficit as you argued and if it would be a disaster if it wasn't paid out as you argued, and if Just about anything else we could do to square that circle would be far more controversial than this which also seems true Then shouldn't we be lifting the cap so that the the rich are paying their fair share in Social Security? How about have an ending? Our foreign war has been I Mean I'm for it, but that's good, man Ben is a friend I he's a socialist I debated on the Dave Smith a part of the problems show just a week ago the entire soulmates So let's end those foreign wars first Ben, don't you think good idea? I love I don't know if it's realistic that we're gonna end up first. Okay. Well, you're a radical socialist Ben do you want to so so I think You and I are in the same page about radicalism, let let's let's deal with the real problems other government because I If we if we hike taxes, we're only going to feed those militaristic bastards more of the bullets that they want So I think it'd be very unfortunate been you and I agree like that. Do you have any comment for okay next question Thank You Mrs. Geller guchi I'm trying to understand your argument. So I think I'm going to ask a couple of Maybe one and a half question, maybe one of those so first of all to understand your legal argument Are you not saying because this is set up by law Therefore it essentially should be off-mike so the fact when they were accruing surpluses that they should not have counted that as a reduction in the federal deficit and now when they're paying out more than they take in they should not be But in fact they did account it as a lesser deficit and now they are accounting it as a bigger deficit, isn't that right And then I want to get to 2035 Because you're saying in 2035. Well the way it's set up The benefits get reduced to whatever the income is in any given year. Yeah, but then you say but we'll never let that happen So, of course the benefits are going to be up but if that's true Isn't there gonna be a deficit then and if we all acknowledge, but that's gonna happen The benefits are being a crude right now. Shouldn't that be accounted as part of the debt? No, that's a great That's a really good clarification and I did try to say that in my opening statement You know, I I really think I do win the debate because Jeanne did swerve to talk about the problems with the debt and the deficit. I really want to focus on the proposition that the Social Security is treated by By the people who? collect revenue and spend money as off budget and proof of that is because it is off its treated as off budget in a trust fund like a couple of other agencies do it can only pay it can only spend What it takes in? It does mean that in 2035 I used to think five years ago that will never happen the results the consequences of cutting benefits there are just too tragic, but the closer we get to 2035 and nothing has been done to raise taxes or to Bring in more revenues. I think it might happen It could very well happen because it will effect actually on the bottom half the distribution much more than the rich so it is not Axiomatic like the CBO is required to account for that The promised benefits now will be paid only scheduled benefits there are promise for scheduled benefits only benefits that can be paid will be paid it is true that Politically now we're having this debate about adding to the deficit because it's redeeming as treasury bonds before when Social Security masked the deficit that Congress really was running it was never put on the the Budget because of the surplus made it look like government was being responsible So we maintain We keep it off budget Treat it that way and then Jeanne and I and Ben and everybody else Can then debate what government should spend and what it should tax and who should pay for it? Well, well I wanted to come and thanks for the question Buddy, Menten and yeah, yeah, and I just want to comment that indeed what happened was in 1998 the Clinton administration declared that the budget was balanced and The only reason they were able to do that is that they were counting the surpluses from Social Security and so Here ironically I to reason I completely agree Starting in 1980 or thereabouts when the but when the death when the but when the surplus has started to be created They should not have been counted and then obviously the Social Security system could have invested the money But indeed what happened was the government Raided the surpluses and spent the money and so that was indeed. What? Had it happened in the private sector. It would have been regarded as criminal fraud and so Just as you suggest then had that happened then then then a balanced budget had to be achieved then without Including this pension fund and the pension fund could have done but the government by the way Runs the federal government runs pension funds but of course and of course state governments often raid their pension funds so Raiding a pension fund is a very standard practice on the part of the federal government and that's what happened And so since we're doing that, right, that's why it's adding to the deficit. Okay next question Kind of piggybacking off that last question, it seems like you both agree that the accounting is a fiction Externally like it's off budget externally. So I guess my question is like does this question even matter? You know K. Wow, I mean I heard the household like the household analogy if the house has a net worth of a hundred thousand the parents lend twenty thousand of the kid who goes And spends it They now have a net worth of eighty thousand Now the parents have an IOU of twenty thousand to the kids But that's internal like the net worth of the house Is still 80 thousand on the other side if they have a hundred thousand dollars and they lend money outside So they actually owe external debt twenty their net worth is still 80,000. So from the external perspective the account the internal accounting is a fiction and if you both agree on that Why does this question matter? Okay who wants to jump at that? You know you say that fiction you talk like fiction like is a bad thing It is it is a design it is designed purposely as a trust-fund to discipline it I said that in my opening remark, so it was contrived that it wasn't an open-ended entitlement that every single promise had to be Had to be paid for it was the original pay for The economic effect of that household analogy on the household is very very different if you owe it externally Or if you owe it in between each other but that is off the the point and if we're going to be Oxford style we have to Stick to the to the resolution can Social Security add to the deficit? Not at all? It can look like it depending upon what? Congress or the CBO does at that moment either included in the unified budget or off budget? But the behavior of Social Security is that it can never add to the deficit No, why does it matter a young man? And the reason why it matters is that I'm sorry soon clear that it's condescending but but all of my young white hunk He's wearing as baseball hat back where it's genies laughing I think that what toward it. Oh, there were Theresa and I have done it part of the problem Is that if you use about nine different analogies to explain something and people's heads get a little dizzy Look all that's really happening. Is that is that the federal budget is out of control? It's on the road to hell. It's the Core the course of servicing the debt Could rise to a trillion dollars And so and so that will mean that it's going broke that will mean that as one wag said if the u.s Goes to war with China it will have to finance war with money It borrows from the Chinese and and and so so that's the reason why it matters the reason why it matters is that there won't Be any goddamn elder care for you when you get old because the government is going broke. That's all that's the reality It's not like, you know, we're not like you Jean we're never gonna grow up So now we've got the signs coming up next question, please And so I guess you kind of got the same kind of theme that I did But I wanted to make it a little more simple Maybe come from a different angle because it seemed to me that A lot of what you guys are speaking is just very very technical and I don't think that's necessary Yeah my question for you, is this if you both agree that In order to fulfill the benefits Center promise today We need more money whether it's by raising the payroll tax to make everybody whole Or if it is by breaking the law that we have before and simply raising taxes to do it Which I suppose would be your case of a breeze the deficit think what real difference is there Isn't that kind of like are you gonna pay from your left pocket or your right? I think it's just too much technicalities here I mean they can onyx and that you're gonna pay war no matter what okay Can I ask you a question I What if we raised your taxes, but what if we tripled the taxes we posed on you tripled the taxes we imposed on you I'm sorry You would not be happy well the Congressional Budget Office has basically said that in effect That in order in order to balance the budget in order to avoid the fiscal time bomb in order to prevent the government from being On the road to hell it will in effect have to triple the taxes that you pay So I assume that if you accept my word that that's true, then you are concerned not Say I'm not well You triple your but your taxes I Think he's arguing that the debate is actually then how do we you know, how should the program be shrunk or something? but Teresa That's that's one solution tripling your taxes Yeah, I mean I I do want to win so I keep on going to the technical aspect, you know of the proposition But you know, we're all really on the same page Cutting social the way Social Security is set up is that if we don't make an affirmative? Step to raise more revenue by raising the payroll tax or expanding the base lifting the cap then we are going to cut benefits Because Social Security is structured not to address and I would just throw in and no it's just moderator getting to spout off here I mean it's a program that was started in 1935 and then was kind of renewed under Ronald Reagan who talked about how the greatest achievement of his presidency was to You know that you have reformed and put on financial footing firm financial footing for another generation this horrible New Deal program that he was arguing against in the early sixties that You know, maybe it's time that we rethink the whole idea or what kind of social safety net. We need for older people Who are now extremely wealthy but that's a kind of separate issue. Let's go to the next question So I'm a fan of a number of your arguments here Jean But I do have one specific question for you a few times you've mentioned this 20 trillion dollar debt and the eventual trillion dollar Per year payment to service the debt, but you're also arguing that Intergovernmental debt is an accounting fraud So at least according to the Treasury is this current analysis that would peg our debt at right around 16 trillion Well, well, absolutely. I did not good question I did not wanted to get us into the swamp, but I never used that 20 trillion dollar figure They the debt the debt owed to the public. It's the only debt that the cost of servicing The debt is only the debt owed to the public and you're quite correct at 16 trillion and and the CBO's projections are all Adherent to the debt owed to the public including over trillion dollars over to the Chinese. So you're absolutely right But in fact that trillion-dollar debt servicing is strictly debt owed to the public the intragovernmental debt Which adds to that again is complete fiction Okay. Thank you next question Thank you, this can be for either party by the way, we're only talking about 2.8 trillion, I believe I routinely I own some bond funds and I routinely During the year sell some bond funds to do Rebalancing of a portfolio. I will purchase some stock funds from time to time and vice versa my question concerning this Trust fund would it be possible do the dollars literally exist? Could those 2.8 trillion dollars be used? today to purchase 2.8 trillion dollars of stock assets Thank you, Jumana absolutely could I was just on a bipartisan Commission to examine whether or not we should do it it turns out that since we oh We're going to were drawing down that debt that investing now in stocks. Would it be worth the risk? It would have been worth it maybe 15 years ago We might have gotten a higher risk of rated risk adjusted rate of return. But since we need the liquidity, it's not worth it. Well Let me address you very good question, I think Teresa would agree Indeed if she's consistent with the source that she linked to that if that were done it would mean that the budget the Treasury would have to expend to point a trillion dollars extra that's what it would have to do on top of the trillions are already spent because all of those Intragovernmental debts have to be handed to the Treasury So the Treasury simply does not have 2.8 trillion dollars to spare but it would have to do is borrow 2.8 trillion That's what would have to happen. And so that's why the proposal is a joke. I would also just add the other thing that would be terrifying is the idea if I I think if the government goes into the stock market then you Politicize you essentially socialize the entire economy. Yeah, they show Final question, there's no more questions. There are no more questions The questions have all been asked never happened to be the toasts have all been made. The wine has all been drank we are going to now open the voting again to You know what I forgot I skipped ahead I missed the best part we've got five minutes each of final Post Buttle I guess right and gene. Do you go first in this or does Theresa? Okay, because you're negative. So you have five minutes. You can sit you can stand you can dance At least that's what I hear you can but whichever okay, so five minutes And bring it on home. Alright Well, I win the debate Because what gene did was worth off the debate with a very worthy argument about how much what the government should be spending if it's worthy does it bring Actually doesn't make our nation richer and to invest in Foreign Wars And to cut taxes for the rich doesn't make us healthier Smarter more able to face the future or more productive. So that's a worthy debate, but it just isn't this one This one is about whether or not Social Security system is structured to cause the the us the us nation to add to The debt the further debt that we're going to have to raise taxes and pay back later by law It is structured so that it can't pay more Than it brings in now right now It is drawing from the general Treasury just like many of you who are redeemed your pension funds and retirement accounts are drawing from the Treasury if it's all internal the economic effect is not the same as A deficit that adds two to the dead and that's what I thought we were talking about today of all the Programs in the federal government and all the decision that Congress and the president makes about spending Social Security is the absolute least of it now we can all come back another day to argue about whether or not we should raise taxes to pay for things that we care about and I'd be happy to come back to talk about Raising Social Security taxes to pay for Social Security because that makes our nation richer if we don't have people living on the street Etc or children have to pay for their indebted parents directly All right, so I want to to close to say that the Social Security system the way it's Organized you might call it a fraud or a fiction It just happens to be the law and the structure of our public finance the way how it is organized has actually helped Congress keep the deficit down It's treated as off budget. It doesn't won't apply. It's not sneaky There is it's a very disciplined program libertarians and conservatives Who are true to the conservative ideology? Would like most of the government to be funded like Social Security To Epistle anticipate anticipated liabilities and make the political case to pay for them so Social Security Does not add to the deficit it certainly does not add to the debt and it doesn't have the economic consequences of a rising deficit and debt would have Thank you very much. Jean your final segment Well, we did and I did at times and along with Teresa mentioned other ramifications of the problems that the budget faces but indeed the Resolution is all about whether the Social Security system adds to the federal deficit Teresa has indicated has implied. There's only right-wingers who think so well the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has been It's actually Keynesian and oriented. It's been Run under President Obama. It was run under President Clinton. It has in statement after statement Highlighted Social Security as a major Contributor to the federal deficit. Why does the nonpartisan organization? Deeply respected by all sides keep saying that it adds to the federal deficit well, it does so because it has Responsibilities to do the accounting of the federal government and it has to report the truth Social Security and now accounts for record twenty-three point seven percent of all federal Outlays and it's due to keep rising faster than either total federal outlays a gross domestic product It's really the elder care costs that are soaring And the reason why SIBO constantly cites bees as one as a key reason why federal deficits are running out of control Is that those are the parts the mandatory parts of the federal budget that keep rising I? Wanted to emphasize that by talking about this it does not mean that I lack compassion for the elderly who receiving Social Security Nick himself Outed me as a Social Security recipient, so I may be a hypocrite but I obviously care about these elder care entitlements and the if if we got serious about those Problems, then we would have the compassion to recognize that the federal government the federal budget being on the road to hell probably means that if Trump Obama Bush the 20 candidates last by last count for the Democratic nomination Elizabeth Warren they talk about spending more Raising taxes but spending probably more than they could have a tax and they have the total head in the sand about the fact that these endocrine Entitlements are running out of control and that and that Social Security is causing is a key cause of the federal deficits that are unsustainable and what will happen what will happen unless Articulate and thoughtful people like Teresa join us What will happen is probably the crunch will hit and the federal government will start pulling the plug and it will start Ending welfare as we know it for 75 year olds for 80 year olds that's the kind of lack of compassion a federal the government is capable of the same government that raided that pension fund for so many years and And and did not allow those funds to be invested So again, I would only ask you to consider if indeed the trillion dollar trust fund Is preventing Social Security from adding to the federal deficit then? Why does the non partisan partisan Congressional Budget Office? Why has the non personal? partisan Congressional Budget Office been talking about the Social Security as a Contributor as a main contributor to the deficit every time you open one of its reports I Submit that the resolution fails and that you should vote no on the resolution It does indeed add to the federal deficits. The rest is all accounting nonsense A matter of law is what Teresa says I will land on my quote from Thomas More paraphrasing them a little bit if the King passed a law That the world is flat Would that make itself? Thank you very much. Thank you very much Now, let's have a big hand a big round of applause for Teresa. Killaura Tucci and Jean Epstein For debating this we're going to open the vote in now So, please go back to Soho vote calm and we'll have a couple of minutes I'll try and do some patter. You know, let's you know, I had a really nice Really nice lunch today that I could talk about but instead one of the things I'll Talk about our upcoming debates for the sohe forum on Monday, July 15th Renegade university had Thaddeus Russell He's a Columbia trained historian will defend the resolution post-modernism is Necessary for a politics of individual liberty against Rockford University professor Stephen Hicks author of explaining post-modernism Hicks is an arch critic sad Russell is a Proponent of post-modernism that should be great Monday August 12th, George Celgene director of the Center for monetary and financial alternatives Will defend the resolution bitcoin is poorly suited to the purpose of becoming any nation's main medium of exchange against Safa Dean a moose author of the Bitcoin standard the decentralized alternative to central banking that one is Real hot ticket if you want to look for that it's if it's not already sold out Tuesday on September 10th part of the problem podcast host Dave Smith Our warm-up back tonight. We're still all kind of toasty from his comedy will defend the resolution the Libertarian party should never again put up national candidates whose views are similar to those of gary johnson and bill weld Against nicholas or wok who SAR work? Who is the chair of the libertarian National Committee? And then and I'll in Monday October 7th Jacob solemn he's a reason magazine senior editor and the author of saying yes in defense of drug use will defend the resolution Except for laws prohibiting the sale of drugs to minors and driving while impaired all laws that penalize drug production distribution Possession and use should be abolished Along with special sin taxes on drugs and he's going up against the former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson author of tell your children the truth about marijuana mental illness Milnes illness and violence How many much longer do we have to two minutes, okay Well, you know, I'm gonna go so let me recap July 15 Yeah, I know but Jean is telling people what's happening on Sunday December 8th, it just seems like kind of a stretch All right. Well, you know go to the SOPA forum calm Is that soma formed org dot org the Soho forum dot org? And you can buy a VIP package where you get a bunch of different tickets. Now you get a preferential rate You'll know you'll get in. You know that I'd say the odds are strong that both the the post-modernism and Okay, but renegade University, I had the postmodern debate the Bitcoin debate these are gonna sell out go get a VIP package and that way you'll make sure you're in a Tuesday, November 5th Richard Wolffe University of mass professor of economics emeritus Will defend the resolution socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom equality and prosperity against soho forum director Jean Epstein Guest moderator to be announced but this is the Amherst Maybe maybe I don't know, you know. You court me a little bit Jean, you know, it's like it's our first date for God's sake The University of Massachusetts Amherst is one of two Marxist economics Departments, right the other being at Notre Dame. Oh, yeah, so this exciting Okay And then Sunday December 8th Loyola University professor of economics Walter block Will defend the resolution while a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside her body whenever that is possible she Retains the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy And he'll be going up against Carrie Baldwin of the MIR Liberty podcast so the fetal, you know, that's the perfect Christmas season a Producer Scrooge will be the guest moderator gene the essence of where you where you come up with resolutions like that I don't know and he picked the fetus, you know Yeah, and then the last sketch of the scheduled debates is Monday January 6 best-selling author in Silicon Valley Entrepreneur Martin Ford will defend the resolution Robotics will soon lead to widespread joblessness underemployment and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few against Anthony Sam Roffe co-host of the Scottish liberty podcast and author of universal basic income for and against All right Do fetuses get the universal basic income or then they could pay rent right? They wouldn't have to be evicted Yeah now that's true yeah, they've got rent control but nobody gets evicted okay we are let me move over Here is the Finding okay now remember Given Social Security's nearly three trillion dollar trust fund the system cannot add to the federal deficit Theresa Was saying yes to that the pre vote Was eight point three percent said, yes, they agreed with the proposition Forty four point seven nine percent forty five percent said no It cannot add to the deficit And undecided was forty six forty seven percent It can it can add No, is that it cannot? okay, so the post is For the yeses went from eight point three percent to fifteen percent for a change in about six point two five percent So that's in an Teresa's favor The nose went from forty five percent to eighty percent for a change of thirty five percent And the undecided went from forty six percent to five percent. So that means a gene is the winner Congratulate for a very interesting Thank you all for coming plays. The bar is still open. There are recent magazines all over the place. Hang out a lot more Thank you for coming
