Social Security requires a bailout that’s 60x greater than the 2008 emergency bank bailout | Schiff Sovereign (2024)

A few weeks ago the Board of Trustees of Social Security sent a formal letter to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to issue a dire warning: Social Security is running out of money.

Given that tens of millions of Americans depend on this public pension program as their sole source of retirement income, you’d think this would have been front page news…

… and that every newspaper in the country would have reprinted this ominous projection out of a basic journalistic duty to keep the public informed about an issue that will affect nearly everyone.

But that didn’t happen.

The story was hardly picked up.

It’s astonishing how little attention this issue receives considering it will end up being one of the biggest financial crises in US history.

That’s not hyperbole either– the numbers are very clear.

The US government itself calculates that the long-term Social Security shortfall exceeds $46 TRILLION.

In other words, in order to be able to pay the benefits they’ve promised, Social Security needs a $46 trillion bailout.

Fat chance.

That amount is over TWICE the national debt, and nearly THREE times the size of the entire US economy.

Moreover, it’s nearly SIXTY times the size of the bailout that the banking system received back in 2008.

So this is a pretty big deal.

More importantly, even though the Social Security Trustees acknowledge that the fund is running out of money, their projections are still wildly optimistic.

In order to build their long-term financial models, Social Security’s administrators have to make certain assumptions about the future.

What will interest rates be in the future?
What will the population growth rate be?
How high (or low) will inflation be?

These variables can dramatically impact the outcome for Social Security.

For example, Social Security assumes that productivity growth in the US economy will average between 1.7% and 2% per year.

This is an important assumption: the higher US productivity growth, the faster the economy will grow. And this ultimately means more tax revenue (and more income) for the program.

But -actual- US productivity growth is WAY below their assumption.

Over the past ten years productivity growth has been about 25% below their expectations.

And in 2016 US productivity growth was actually NEGATIVE.

Here’s another one: Social Security is hoping for a fertility rate in the US of 2.2 children per woman.

This is important, because a higher population growth means more people entering the work force and paying in to the Social Security system.

But the actual fertility rate is nearly 20% lower than what they project.

And if course, the most important assumption for Social Security is interest rates.

100% of Social Security’s investment income is from their ownership of US government bonds.

So if interest rates are high, the program makes more money. If interest rates are low, the program doesn’t make money.

Where are interest rates now? Very low.

In fact, interest rates are still near the lowest levels they’ve been in US history.

Social Security hopes that ‘real’ interest rates, i.e. inflation-adjusted interest rates, will be at least 3.2%.

This means that they need interest rates to be 3.2% ABOVE the rate of inflation.

This is where their projections are WAY OFF… because real interest rates in the US are actually negative.

The 12-month US government bond currently yields 1.2%. Yet the official inflation rate in the Land of the Free is 1.7%.

In other words, the interest rate is LOWER than inflation, i.e. the ‘real’ interest rate is MINUS 0.5%.

Social Security is depending on +3.2%.

So their assumptions are totally wrong.

And it’s not just Social Security either.

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston Collage, US public pension funds at the state and local level are also underfunded by an average of 67.9%.

Additionally, most pension funds target an investment return of between 7.5% to 8% in order to stay solvent.

Yet in 2015 the average pension fund’s investment return was just 3.2%. And last year a pitiful 0.6%.

This is a nationwide problem. Social Security is running out of money. State and local pension funds are running out of money.

And even still their assumptions are wildly optimistic. So the problem is much worse than their already dismal forecasts.

Understandably everyone is preoccupied right now with whether or not World War III breaks out in Guam.

(I would respectfully admit that this is one of those times I am grateful to be living on a farm in the southern hemisphere.)

But long-term, these pension shortfalls are truly going to create an epic financial and social crisis.

It’s a ticking time bomb, and one with so much certainty that we can practically circle a date on a calendar for when it will hit.

There are solutions.

Waiting on politicians to fix the problem is not one of them.

The government does not have a spare $45 trillion lying around to re-fund Social Security.

So anyone who expects to retire with comfort and dignity is going to have to take matters into their own hands and start saving now.

Consider options like SEP IRAs and 401(k) plans that have MUCH higher contribution limits, as well as self-directed structures which give you greater influence over how your retirement savings are invested.

These flexible structures also allow investments in alternative asset classes like private equity, cashflowing royalties, secured lending, cryptocurrency, etc.

Education is also critical.

Learning how to be a better investor can increase your investment returns and (most importantly) reduce losses.

And increasing the long-term average investment return of your IRA or 401(k) by just 1% per year can have a PROFOUND (six figure) impact on your retirement.

These solutions make sense: there is ZERO downside in saving more money for retirement.

But it’s critical to start now. A little bit of effort and planning right now will pay enormous dividends in the future.

Social Security requires a bailout that’s 60x greater than the 2008 emergency bank bailout | Schiff Sovereign (2024)

FAQs

Who got the biggest bailout in 2008? ›

In 2008, nearly 1,000 companies received bailout funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Some of the biggest bank bailout recipients included Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. Other businesses like General Motors and Chrysler also received funds through TARP.

What was the financial system bailout in 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilisation Act of 2008? ›

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, also known as the "bank bailout of 2008" or the "Wall Street bailout", was a United States federal law enacted during the Great Recession, which created federal programs to "bail out" failing financial institutions and banks.

Why did the government bail out banks? ›

The biggest bailout for the banking industry was the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion government bailout meant to keep troubled banks and other financial institutions afloat. The program ended up supporting at least 700 banks during the 2007–08 Financial Crisis.

What was the bailout in 2008 legislation? ›

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) was a law passed by Congress in 2008 in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. It authorized the Treasury secretary to buy up to $700 billion of troubled assets and restore liquidity in financial markets.

Did Bank of America pay back bailout money? ›

Bank of America, which announced its agreement with the U.S. Treasury to repay TARP last week, funded the repayment through a combination of cash on hand and the sale of $19.29 billion of securities that would convert into common stock.

Do bailouts have to be paid back? ›

The bailout support can come in the form of cash that does not have to be paid back, loans with favorable terms for the entity receiving the funds, bonds, and stock purchases.

Did the US government cause the 2008 financial crisis? ›

Causes of the Great Recession

First, the report identified failure on the part of the government to regulate the financial industry. This failure to regulate included the Federal Reserve's inability to stop banks from giving mortgages to people who subsequently proved to be a bad credit risk.

What companies has the government bailed out? ›

DateFinancial InstitutionState
11/21/2008City National CorporationCalif.
11/21/2008Pacific Capital BancorpCalif.
11/21/2008Heritage Commerce Corp.Calif.
11/21/2008First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc.Calif.
92 more rows

Which act was passed in response to the financial crisis of 2008? ›

The Dodd-Frank Act, signed into law in July 2010, spans 2,300 pages and directs federal regulators to burden job creators and the economy with more than 400 new rules and mandates. The Act was touted by its supporters as “Wall Street reform” and Washington's response to the financial crisis of 2008.

Can the government take money from your bank account during a recession? ›

Banking regulation has changed over the last 100 years to provide more protection to consumers. You can keep money in a bank account during a recession and it will be safe through FDIC and NCUA deposit insurance. Up to $250,000 is secure in individual bank accounts and $500,000 is safe in joint bank accounts.

What law allows banks to take your money? ›

"Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act."

Can the government take money from your bank account in a crisis in the UK? ›

The answer, worryingly, is yes. However HMRC must satisfy certain conditions before they can go dipping into your savings.

Who were the recipients of the 2008 bailout? ›

As Gretchen Morgenson pointed out when information about Fed bailout programs first became public, just six banks — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — were the recipients of 63 percent of the Fed's average daily borrowing, representing about a half-trillion ...

Who benefited from the financial crisis of 2008? ›

What groups (or individuals) actually profited from the 2008 financial crisis? Short answer: Group: “Investment Bank” Goldman Sachs; Individual: Henry “Hank” Paulson Jr.

Where did the 2008 bailout money come from? ›

In 2008, the federal government created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion government bailout designed to keep troubled banks and other companies in operation. Through the TARP, around $245 billion in taxpayer money was used to stabilize more than 700 banks.

Who was the 2008 US government bailout recipient? ›

DateFinancial InstitutionAmount
10/28/2008Bank of America Corp.1$15,000,000,000
10/28/2008JPMorgan Chase & Co.$25,000,000,000
10/28/2008Citigroup Inc.$25,000,000,000
10/28/2008Morgan Stanley$10,000,000,000
92 more rows

Who benefited most from tarp? ›

TARP Recipients: The TARP program provided financial assistance to many institutions, including banks, insurance companies, and automakers. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of the program were Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG, and General Motors.

Did Morgan Stanley get bailed out in 2008? ›

After the 2008 stock market crash, Morgan Stanley and seven other large U.S. banks received capital investments through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). By June 2009, Morgan Stanley had fully paid back the $10 billion in TARP money to the U.S. Treasury.

Did AIG pay back the government? ›

AIG finished repaying the full $182.3 billion bailout in December 2012, leaving taxpayers with a nearly $23 billion profit. Greenberg, 89, led AIG for nearly four decades before his 2005 ouster.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Dong Thiel

Last Updated:

Views: 6007

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (79 voted)

Reviews: 86% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Dong Thiel

Birthday: 2001-07-14

Address: 2865 Kasha Unions, West Corrinne, AK 05708-1071

Phone: +3512198379449

Job: Design Planner

Hobby: Graffiti, Foreign language learning, Gambling, Metalworking, Rowing, Sculling, Sewing

Introduction: My name is Dong Thiel, I am a brainy, happy, tasty, lively, splendid, talented, cooperative person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.