Social Security and Pie!
Why? Just because. Plus Dean was warning about some sort of housing bubble at the time. How nutty was that? Plus my best buddy just starting out on his pie:
WaPO: WHAT CRISIS?: It Ain’t Broke, So No Need To Fix It
Sunday, January 23, 2005; Page B02 By Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker,The latest Social Security trustees’ report, whose numbers even the White House uses, predicts that the Social Security program can pay all promised benefits for the next 38 years — with no changes at all. The June 2004 estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay all promised benefits without changes for even longer, until 2052. That’s nearly half a century.
And we are supposed to be worried about this? It brings to mind the image of Woody Allen as a nerdy young child in “Annie Hall,” becoming suddenly depressed because he has discovered that “the universe is expanding” and life on Earth is ultimately doomed.
but before the doom Pie! And more from Mark and Dean under the fold.
Granted, 38 years is not an eternity. But even after 2042, the Social Security trustees say they will be able to pay an average benefit that is actually higher than what workers receive today — indefinitely. That’s in 2004 dollars — adjusted for inflation.
Social Security benefits are programmed to rise not only with price inflation, but also with wages. So Congress will at some point have to increase taxes or shave the benefits promised to future generations. But that’s no different from what’s been done before. In fact the projected shortfall for the next 75 years is smaller than shortfalls covered by adjustments in each of the following decades: the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s. It is also about one-third the size of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration.
In other words, it’s a non-issue. Or should be. Yet most Americans seem terribly confused about the basic facts. During the third presidential debate last fall, moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS told the candidates that Social Security was “running out of money.” Neither candidate corrected him, and the press did not note the error.
Here are some of the obfuscations and accounting tricks — or misunderstandings — that have created false impressions about Social Security’s finances:
The disappearing trust fund: Some people say that Social Security will run into trouble in 2018. But this is like saying that Bill Gates will be strapped if he works only part time. He will still have $40 billion in assets, enough to keep him living well for a long time.
Similarly, the Social Security trust fund will have more than $3.7 trillion in today’s dollars in 2018. Combined with payroll tax revenues, that is enough to cover promised benefits until 2042, the trustees’ report says.
“That money’s all been spent”: When anyone lends money to the federal government by buying a bond, the government spends it. But the government still pays interest and repays what it borrowed. That goes for the Social Security trust fund. Social Security has been running annual surpluses (now at more than $150 billion) since 1983. By law it must invest that surplus in U.S. Treasury obligations.
“But the trust fund is only holding I.O.U.’s — just pieces of paper!” Another canard: All bonds are I.O.U.’s. Those “pieces of paper” are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which has never, ever defaulted on its bonds.
“The baby boomers’ retirement will bankrupt Social Security.” Far from it. The first boomers actually begin retiring in 2008. Most of them will be dead before Social Security faces any financial difficulties.
“There are currently 3.3 workers paying into Social Security for every beneficiary; by 2035, there will be only 2.1.” True enough, but deceptive and not scary as it sounds. Productivity (output per hour) will grow substantially during the same period, so we won’t need nearly as many working people to support a larger retired population.
“If nothing is done, Social Security and Medicare will eat up 90 percent of our federal budget by 2050.” The trick here is throwing in Medicare, a separate program. The projected costs of Medicare are indeed out of control — a result of spiraling health care costs. This makes a strong case for health care reform, but that has nothing to do with Social Security.
The bottom line is that Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history, according to Social Security trustees’ numbers. If workers in 2050, who will be earning on average 68 percent more in real, inflation-adjusted dollars than they are today, have to pay 1 or 2 percent more of their income in taxes — as they have in the past — they won’t be able to complain much. They will still enjoy higher living standards than we do today. And Social Security will provide much larger real annual benefits for longer retirements when their turn comes.
The impending crisis of Social Security is a myth. Without it, however, Bush’s initiative to slash benefits and partially privatize the program wouldn’t have a prayer.
Bruce
All true. And still true. Which makes you wonder what The President is smoking.
Here is a small gloss. The reason there will be “only 2.1 workers for each retiree” comes down to each worker is expected to live about 20 years after he retires. That’s after working forty years to save for his retirement. Note the 2 working years for each retirement year.
You may think “it’s obvious. then just raise the retirement age.” Well, it won’t be so obvious to you when you are in your sixties. You may think that if you have to work another day you’d rather kill yourself, and then when someone explains to you that you could have retired if you had only saved another 2% of your income… which will have been plenty high enough for you to afford it… then you may shoot yourself just for being so stupid.
Say, you work forty years and you and your boss put away 20% of your income for your retirement. Then when you retire you can collect, on a monthly basis, 40% of your former income to pay for twenty years of life expectancy in quite reasonable comfort.
Twenty percent of your income too much? Well the 80% that’s left after you save 20% is more than twice as much as your grandparents lived on… and it will be for that guy in the future when all this comes to pass more than twice as much as you are living on today.
But hell, you really need another new Lexus, and one for each of the kids, and you are never going to want to retire anyway.
I guess I need to add that this is calculated in “real” dollars. And the only way it works is by “pay as you go” so the current worker is paying the current retiree in current dollars. And that turns out better than I descrived, because the current dollars at current wages contain a “hidden interest” … about 5% compounded in today’s economy … that mean you get more than you paid in.
And this only works if SS is mandatory, because most folks would rather have that new Lexus every year. They know they are going to get rich on the stock market and never get old and never want to retire. Experience has shown that most of them are wrong. But it is in the nature of things that it’s not the sort of “experience” they can experience themselves until it’s too late.
The bottom line is that Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history
However, the rest of the Federal Budget is less financially sound than ever. Other social programs will need to be cut dramatically, or taxes raised dramatically. However, this does not concern Bruce Webb in the least.
sammy
you keep saying this. on no evidence whatsoever. what Bruce and I say is that Social Security did not
cause the deficit and will never add to any future deficit.
Neither will taxes need to be raised dramatically. Social Security taxes can be raised one half of one tenth of one percent annually. No one now working will ever see that 2% increase. And if that half of a tenth of a percent ever becomes a burden, we can deal with it then. The enemies of Social Security don’t give a damn about SS taxes or the people who pay them… the same people who get the benefits. They think they can kill SS and force all those lazy old people back to work… making money for the boss.
The money owed TO social security can be paid back with a tax increase of 3% over ten years. No reason why the same size tax increase won’t bring down the “on budget” deficit over time. That’ not a “dramatic increase.”
Trouble is you live in a universe where numbers and sizes and proportions don’t mean anything. It’s a nightmare world created by the bad movies you have been watching.
Sammy, they go blithley skipping down the road, fingers in their ears, singing La-la, la-la, la-la…. Few want to admit when their generation old policies are proven to be unsustainable, but we see it over and over with the left.
Someone please help me here. Why do liberals and other leftists, think that socialism and communism work? How many historical failures does it take?
Please, before going off, I am serious about this question. There is a growing openness about the left’s embrace of these political systems.
The twenty percent looks huge. But its the same as if you brought home your Monday to Friday paycheck and said you couldn’t see any reason to save 20% of it to get you through the weekend.
The brain failure that most people suffer is they see the SS payment as a “tax.” And never expect to see the money again. The fact that retired people get their money back plus interest is not “real” to them.
Not as real as a sure thing on the stock market.
CoRev –
You look at facts and data and call it “fingers in the ears.” You present no facts, no data, and then ask a stupid question.
Yes, STUPID!
SS is not socialism. Socialism is not communism. Use a dictionary for Christ’s sake.
And what’s your roster of historical failures? Norway? Denmark? Sweden?
You can’t be serious about your question, because there is nothing but ignorance and pre-programed right-wing talking points behind it.
And damned willful ignorance at that.
This is one more example of you attempting to derail a conversation.
Your comments here are thougthless, off-topic, foolish, and unrelated to the real word.
Nor are you entertaining.
Next time, try to bring somthing of value to the discussion.
Else you are a troll.
Cheers!
JzB
CoRev
I always start out meaning to be nice to you, but when you give us bull shit I have to say it stinks.
There is nothing socialist about social security except your tiny brain’s confusion about the similarity of the words. Social Security is workers paying for their own retirement / insurance out of their own pockets in a way that is protected from inflation and market losses.
Now, Socialism means something like state ownership of the means of production. You seem to think it means any way that workers can come up to protect themselves from the hazards of “free” markets.
MOreover there is nothing unsustainable about Social Security. IT’s the goddam military industrial banking complex that is unsustainable, trying to prop up it’s last miserable adventure by stealing from the workers life savings.
And while I”m at it
Capitalism
is nothing more than an economic system whereby people gather the money needed to fund new enterprises by borrowing it or selling shares in the enterprise. There is no reason that capitalism cannot work just fine with robust government regulation and reasonable protection of the welfare of the workers and population in general.
What you call “capitalism” is simply the propaganda of those people with a current advantage in the market, especially with respect to workers or new businesses, trying to get you to support their hold on political power. That’s not capitalism, it’s the same old same old war of the rich against the poor.
In which the only hope the poor have ever had is that when some of the rich war on the other rich, sometimes they need the help of the poor enough to pay for it. But they’d rather just lie to you and get your help that way.
JzB, I tried to get a reasonable answer, but then your response appears.
The p[residnent, Bernanke, Geithner, Tea party menbers, republicans, conservatives, and the majority of American voters realize the truth of what Sammy presented. “However, the rest of the Federal Budget is less financially sound than ever. Other social programs will need to be cut dramatically, or taxes raised dramatically.“
Either you accept Sammy’s comment as a description of budget fact or at the least potential fact, or you are completely ignorant of the portential impacts of the unsustainable budgetting.
As to my question, you are trying to deflect from the issue for which it tried to get clarification. Please don’t ask inane questions re: commist and socialist failures. They are too long. Here’s a pull quote: “
Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems.
Frequently referred to as a “benevolent” socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential.” From this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html which goes on to show how brutal has been Sweden to its menatally ill/retarded.
I will repeat my many earlier comments re: protecting your favorite program, of which SS is only one. I don’t care! But, to ignore the context in which they are being discussed is denial in its purist form.
This article is just next in a list of many trying to protect SS from the inevitable. How much closer to economic collapse do you want to take us before we must finally act?
Context Dale, context. Continuing to say this: “I say is that Social Security did not
cause the deficit and will never add to any future deficit. ” and your earlier insistence that it is not part of the budget continue to be wrong.
CoRev
you are beginning to try to take over this thread. i hope the thread owner will delete your comments, not because i disagree with them, but because they are an attempt to confuse the issue with mindless word salad.
Sammy’s description of “budget fact” has nothing to do with Social Security. Social Security is “off budget.” It pays for itself. Always has. Always will. The budget deficits are caused by defense spending and bankers’ folly, and irresponsible tax cuts.
Communism has nothing to do with any of this. Neither does Sweden.
SS has nothing to do with the economic collapse you fear. That has more to do with unregulated banking, stock market speculation, export of major industries… there’s one for you, instead of “socializing” major industries, we just send them to China where the communists will run them better than American capitalists.
Please, we got your point. You think Social Security is the cause of the budget deficit and needs to be cut so that old people won’t lie around in idleness sucking at the American teat. You’re wrong. But we heard you. And we answered you. You don’t need to keep repeating yourself.
CoRev–I was just wondering how old you are. Well, ‘fess up. Are you receiving Social Security benefits or some other form of government pension, like a military or civil service retirement annuity? Because, if so, your argument is singularly disingenuous.
You know the numbers and are, as I recall, a businessman. So, you have to look at a program which has been in existence and has performed impeccably for 75 years as successful. After all, if your company does as well, it would be doing so against long odds–very long odds indeed.
You know, come to think of it, you seem to have a whole lot of time to jump Bruce and Coberly’s posts that most businessmen don’t have. So, tell us who you are and what outfit you speak for. Why not? JB, Cobes, Bruce, I, and others of us would like to know what you’re up to. Troll or no troll? Whaddaya say, Jose? Ven afuera conmigo pa’ hablar. NancyO
Corev is on a military pension and adds to the deficit.
I am thinking that the hijacking of the thread idea has merit….as I said, sticking to the defense of a program that works well has a lot of merit, and I see no reason to dilute that defense in the face of calls for austerity that leaves most of the budget out of bounds except certain programs.
So far it is an exercise in ‘advocacy’ and propaganda (there are other words) and I suspect will continue to be. The exclusion of medicare from the conversation is not accidental by anyone, and the exclusion of military spending by most makes it also not really a conversation about the federal deficit. The current tax cut extensions and possible further extensions make the conversation into a joke.
I think the communist piece is the final straw for me. Enough please. It is a question that presupposes a particular answer and is not really asking for an open answer. That is my take on the repeating nature of the questions. It is simple idealogy and offers nothing of value in presenting a reasoned point of view on the question of Social Security except the topical discussion of the politics of elections, which will change.
The federal deficit question has not been tackled in public in a coherent manner with anything close to objectivity because by its very nature impacts peoples’ livelihoods and revenue streams, and has been bandied about by many special interests and idealogies.
The self-interest aspect of who gets money from what pot and how that impacts one’s beliefs was opened in comments on Linda Beale’s posts on taxes and Illinois…you know, the ‘guess who pays her’ canard. That can of worms was opened there unfortunately.
NO, I am a retired Fed with undergrad and Masters degrees in the Political Sciences, which have been reinforced by nearly 40 years of local and Federal govt service. I have the time because I am retired. I comment on this subject becuase it is obviously so misunderstood, especially within the context of the overall budget.
NO, I will ask you, do you believe we are approaching a budget/deficit problem in the US? If you do, how does SS play into that impending problem?
Calling me names (troll) helps not, because we have yet to have a meaningful conversation of SS in context of the overall budget/deficit. If that’s what you folks actually desire make your case, but it must be made in context, and without or at least recognizing the misinformation.
Dan not quite.
The deficit is what it always is – a mismatch between revenues and spending. Policymakers can address it by cutting spending, raising revenues, or some combination of the two. What they choose to do is a political matter, nothing more and nothing less.
Dale saying this: “…they are an attempt to confuse the issue with mindless word salad. ” and then adding this:
“Sammy’s description of “budget fact” has nothing to do with Social Security. Social Security is “off budget.” It pays for itself. Always has. Always will. The budget deficits are caused by defense spending and bankers’ folly, and irresponsible tax cuts. ”
Are both prime examples of your word salad (“off budget”) and complete and total misunderstanding of why SS is on the budget radar.
I realize yours and Bruce’s egoes are invlved with “saving” SS from the meanies (budget cutters), but you’re arguing with the wrong person. Take it up with the president, congress, Geithner, Bernanke, the deficit commission and the many other study groups.
I don’t think SS is/was/will be the cause (singular) of the deficit, but to say it is not part and parcel of the impending budget problems is ignorance personified. You have asked why is it even part of the discussion? I have repeatedly tried to answer that question.
Dale saying this: “…they are an attempt to confuse the issue with mindless word salad. ” and then adding this:
“Sammy’s description of “budget fact” has nothing to do with Social Security. Social Security is “off budget.” It pays for itself. Always has. Always will. The budget deficits are caused by defense spending and bankers’ folly, and irresponsible tax cuts. ”
Are both prime examples of your word salad (“off budget”) and complete and total misunderstanding of why SS is on the budget radar.
I realize yours and Bruce’s egoes are invlved with “saving” SS from the meanies (budget cutters), but you’re arguing with the wrong person. Take it up with the president, congress, Geithner, Bernanke, the deficit commission and the many other study groups.
I don’t think SS is/was/will be the cause (singular) of the deficit, but to say it is not part and parcel of the impending budget problems is ignorance personified. You have asked why is it even part of the discussion? I have repeatedly tried to answer that question.
I will stop repeating this clarification to the ongoing confusion when you folks stop repeating the out of context defense of SS articles.
“only 2.1 workers for each retiree” my simple math says there’s plenty to meet retirees needs. how many non-retirees are we supporting with these same dollars and what’s that ratio?
Dan said: “as I said, sticking to the defense of a program that works well has a lot of merit, and I see no reason to dilute that defense in the face of calls for austerity that leaves most of the budget out of bounds except certain programs.” To which I heartiley agree!
But in my interpretation of Sammy’s comment and certainly my own commenting on SS (not the question re: socialism and communism), what we are trying to get across is this. Protecting one program impinges on the others.
In a purely academic setting we have the discussion of countervailing forces , and all of the forces are gathering to protect their “pet programs.” What is now different is that SS is diminishing in its prominence, and SS is falling back to a level approaching (not yet at) that of the every other “pet programs.”
Dan said: “as I said, sticking to the defense of a program that works well has a lot of merit, and I see no reason to dilute that defense in the face of calls for austerity that leaves most of the budget out of bounds except certain programs.” To which I heartily agree!
But in my interpretation of Sammy’s comment and certainly my own commenting on SS (not the question re: socialism and communism), what we are trying to get across is this. Protecting one program impinges on the others.
In a purely academic setting we have the discussion of countervailing forces, and all of the many forces are gathering to protect their “pet programs.” What is now different is that SS is diminishing in its prominence, and SS is falling back to a level approaching (not yet at) that of the every other “pet programs.”
Dan, I agree: “What they choose to do is a political matter, nothing more and nothing less.”
CoRev,
What is to be done in regards to the cost of military pensions. These are not pre-funded. Military pensions are a direct cost to the federal budget. Military pensions have no distinct funding stream outside the general budget. Are you putting military pensions and the cost of maintaining the VA health care system into the deficit control mix? If not, why not?
“Yet most Americans seem terribly confused about the basic facts”
Confused? People have been lying to them for decades.
Politically perhaps, but to argue it is a pet program based on the revenue stream limitations to date is false, and even Alan Simpson has said it is not part of the immediate problem, and he hates the idea of SS. Hence whatever is driving this emphasis on SS is a political hatchet job and not about fiduciary responibility at all.
CoRev
I hope you will make it very clear to your supporters that when they have cut Social Security, they will still have to pay the tax, but now the money will go to YOUR pet program… say, a new submarine for the war on terror.
CoRev is just digging his own rhetorical grave. I have no intention of deleting his comments, instead I am proud of the fact that I supplied the shovel.
Signed: Commie Marxist Bastard Comrade Webski
Jack, yes, cut them! We can do it now, when we can control the cutting and phase it, or we can wait till it’s too late and let the new buyers and potential new buyers of our ever growing Treasuries dictate. The worst case is that they stop buying them all together no matter the interest.
Hey Rdan – That’s what I’ve been saying all along!!!
How to cover the revenue stream from the general fund to SS (via redeeming SS bonds) is a political question. Basically how congress decides to pay the bills. Of which SS is just another line item.
Just like Bruce and coberly have said all along.
We are all in violent agreement here.
But how we pay for that revenue stream is a political question – I like coberly suggestion or the NW plan. Either will do. But if you want the checks to get sent out you got to find money somewhere or print some more.
Just like if you wanted another submarine.
Islam will change
Dan, it’s a fact of governing, that every program creates its own constituency. Some are powerful due to numbers and some are powerful due to their political clout, but for every pro-constituency there will be a countervailing one. In my estimation what we are seeing is the constituency for SS is starting to lose some strength of position.
Accordingly we see the wagon circling to protect it. Because I am more or less agnostic on all programs, and because I have been trained/educated in the nuances of Govt, I am just observing. Because I am not part of the support at any costs side of the SS equation my comments are misinterpreted to be against SS, and I have been called “troll”, idiot, etc, etc.
In the end SS will change or not, but unless we do something dramatic with the budget, nothing we are currently spending on will be exempt. It is the recognition of that possibility that drives, the President, Geithner, Bernanke, the Deficit Commission, Tea party members, a large portion of voters, and many other study groups, and its to them you need to take your arguments. Not me!
Jack,
Military pensions & VA system costs have been line items in the DoD budget for years. They compete just like buying a new sub or anything else the general fund has to cut a check for.
SS is in great shape by itself. A dedicated revenue stream and roughly $2.5T in US bonds (the safeest in the world). No argument there. None at all.
Just like I don’t think you have any argument with the fact that the general funds is in total disarray and neither party is serious about dealing with it.
Like I said we are all in violent agreement.
Islam will change
CoRev–Each of us earned our federal pensions. You may be independently wealthy apart from your mil. pension and if so, good for you. But, we all know that even if SS and our pensions stopped tomorrow, this government will keep on spending money at whatever rate Congress requires. It’s only a question of who is gonna get the money!
SS benefits and federal pensions go into the domestic economy and stay there. SS recirculates at least 7 times before it makes its way back to the Treasury as taxes. SS pumps about 55 million bucks a month into the economy. If that money dries up, where’s money going to come from to replace it? Nowhere is where!
Running the government takes management skills. It’s easy to run up a deficit and hard to repay it. But, you do it over time, and not by cutting the domestic economy’s throat in the process. Without new industries, we’re busted forever. The huge investments it takes to get new energy generation sources and other infrastructure can only come from Uncle Sam. Obviously, private capital is running away to other countries as fast as its little legs can carry it. Capitalism does not require this result. Neither does Democracy. It just doesn’t make sense to set your own house on fire because it costs so much to maintain it.
Your arguments do not persuade me and mine do not persuade you. That’s pretty much the situation all round. You insist and others resist. It’s boring, CoRev! Oy. Ganz genug. NancyO
Bruce, thanks for your support of the 1st amendment.
NO, I don’t disagree with anything you said, with this exception: “You may be independently wealthy apart from your mil. pension and if so, good for you.” I don’t know where this comes from. Independent, yes! Wealthy? On a federal salary and pension? If I didn’t make it clear, I do not get a Mil Pension. That’s ILSM.
coberly (and all),
“What you call “capitalism” is simply the propaganda of those people with a current advantage in the market, especially with respect to workers or new businesses, trying to get you to support their hold on political power. That’s not capitalism, it’s the same old same old war of the rich against the poor.”
I just finished reading an excellent post which highlights the difference between capitalism and corporatism/crony capitalism/kleptocracy. (http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/02/corporatism-masquerading-as-liberty.html) …
“Corporatism has nothing to do with liberty. It is all about power and coercion. It’s about favouring the big guy over the little guy, the more well-connected over the less well-connected, the insider over the outsider. And in society that means favouring large, incumbent businesses over smaller businesses, new entrants or individuals.”
(he goes on to discuss the relationship between capitalism and regulation)
We’ve come to think “capitalism” means “what we’ve got.” But capitalism can also mean the general store, the small local factory, or the guy or group of investors who put up the money to fund production and marketing of another guy’s invention in return for a share of the profits. What we’ve got is corporatism, a kleptocracy where all the power and influence of the big corporations is brought to bear in order to convince people that those who have more know more and therefore, the people’s interests should be sub-ordinated to the interests of their “betters.”
“Why do liberals and other leftists, think that socialism and communism work?”
Why do consevatives and other right-wingers think mindless assertions like this work? I’m as serious about this as CoRev was when he posted his nonsense.
The difference between how we cover the revenue stream for food stamps or drones and how we cover the revenue stream for SS is that neither food stamps nor drones are self-financed.
The Treasury borrows money and pays it back. It does not matter whether they borrowed it for a foreign war or for food stamps or whether they borrowed it by selling securities or by issuing securities to the Social Security program. In every case, they had the option not to borrow the money. They also had the option to choose how and from whom to borrow the money.
Some in government and in business seem to think that it’s ok for a debtor to try to destroy the creditor rather than pay him. It would be a very different world if that were to become universally accepted behavior.
Not only lying to them, but telling them that anyone who tells them the truth is a liar.
…and as a consequence of all those years, they believe it.
SS is in great shape by itself. A dedicated revenue stream and roughly $2.5T in US bonds (the safeest in the world). No argument there. None at all.
Just like I don’t think you have any argument with the fact that the general funds is in total disarray and neither party is serious about dealing with it.
Agreed. And it makes the point that SS and the “general fund” are distinct issues, too. 🙂
I should have said they didn’t have to spend the money backed by Special Treasuries, I suppose. (Is that more correct, Bruce?)
Linda R
Thanks. I’m glad others have noticed the difference. But the tragedy here is that CoRev’s idiocy is being passed around Washington as the serious truth.
CoRev–I apologize for my error. NancyO
CoRev
in the unlikely event “theY” stop buying out bonds, we’ll just have to pay cash. which is what the R’s say they think we should be doing now.
Morality Co Rev style:
cut pensions… promised payments for services rendered.
cut VA hospitals… promised care to soldiers who defended his country.
CoRev
the first amendment guarantees you freedom of speech. it does not guarantee that the rest of us have to listen to you, or let you dominate this website with repetitious nonsense.
when the federals come in to shut down YOUR website, or break up a meeting in which you are the invited speaker, i will try to defend you, if your friends haven’t made us a police state by then.
CoRev
I call you an idiot not because you are “not part of the support at any costs…of SS” but because your arguments are idiotic.
You support the position that if I go into a store and special order and pay for a ham for Christmas, when I go to pick up the ham, the store owner can give me a combination potato peeler and snow shovel because, after all, it all comes out of his budget.
It would be one thing if social security really was “unsustainable,” which is why the bad guys keep repeating that lie. But we know that social security can pay for itself, easily, as it always has.
It would be one thing if social security really was “welfare,” which is why the bad guys keep talking as though it is, but we know that people pay for their own social security using a dedicated “tax” that promises them they will get their money back when they retire, or get sick, or die with dependents.
CoRev continually and repeatedly seeks to obscure these facts with nonsense. He is on the side of the Big Liars, whatever he says about “not caring.”
We would like to carry our arguments to the President, but he isn’t listening. I’d be glad to talk to the Tea Partiers, but I can be sure someone like CoRev would stand up and talk nonsense until no one could hear me.
And I’d considered asking why conservatives etc. think socialism and communism don’t work. It seems to work just fine for corporations and other big businesses.
An observer? Really? Methinks thou dost protest too much….
An observer wouldn’t have quite so much to say.
Dale, when have I oproposed cutting SS? What I have tried consistently to say is that SS is losing iy’s political power and is falling back (not there yet) to the level of the other programs.
LindaR, Dale, NO, et al, if you can show me I’m wrong in that analysis, fine, but the constant attempts here to protect SS is evidence of that loss of political power. If it was so strong there would be no need for the protection.
CoRev
no doubt SS has lost political “power.” the main reason is that people have been lying about it and people like you believe the lies and repeat them.
it is important that people understand that SS is not welfare and does not contribute to the deficit… becaue it is fully paid for by the people who will get the benefits. but you constantly try to deny that or obscure it with word games.
LindR this is not quite correct: “They also had the option to choose how and from whom to borrow the money.” Treasuries are sold in an open auction at the offered prices. Highest first, until the offered treasury amount is met. So tresuries are discounted at sale, then the buyer/investor gets the face value at maturity.
Occasionally, the offering is not met, but it is incorrect to think that Treasury picks and chooses its buyers/investors.
This is what AP had to say about today’s auction. “
Treasury prices edged lower Thursday after the government paid a slightly higher yield in an auction of 30-year bonds.
The new bonds sold at a yield of 4.75 percent, just above the 4.74 percent it was trading at right before the auction. The auction was 2.51 times subscribed, compared to an average of 2.55 times in the previous four auctions. That’s a sign of slightly weakening demand for the bonds.
Indirect bidders, a rough proxy for foreign funds and banks, took 43 percent of the notes, compared to the recent average of 36 percent. The $16 billion auction was the last of three this week that raised a total of $72 billion to finance the government’s budget deficit….”
From here: “http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12885729
and you can’t have it both ways.
you can’t come in here and call us communists and turn around and say you are “agonstic” on SS
you can’t call us names and then act hurt – superior when we call you names.
in short you can’t play bad cop and good cop both.
well, its good to know these unchosen buyers will get to dictate policy per your comment re welshing on pensions and closing the VA hospitals.
Well since you put it that way, it sounds like we are overfunding social security. Let’s reduce the payroll tax.
Dale, if you are going to make a point: “I call you an idiot not because you are “not part of the support at any costs…of SS” but because your arguments are idiotic.” At least provide examples of the arguments you find idiotic. Providing just an analogy is meaningless.
I’ll just wait over here on the side.
Dale show me where: “CoRev continually and repeatedly seeks to obscure these facts with nonsense. He is on the side of the Big Liars, whatever he says about “not caring.””
Dale show me: “…and people like you believe the lies and repeat them.”
Dale, huh?
Dale, you stumbed onto a truth: “…we’ll just have to pay cash.” Which come out of overall revenues, and payments are prioritized on a daily/periodic basis by ???, (OMB, Treasury?)
Dale, why the hyperbole? I have never said that, unless it is part of a general budget cut, and at that point we are talking about racking and stacking ALL those “pet programs” again. Which BTW is done every budget cycle.
The problem with the budget racking and stacking is that these “pet programs” have nearly contiuously gone up; almost never cut;, and nearly impossible to shut down a “pet program.”
Thanks, and gratefully accepted.
Somewhere is an example of a military program cut back in 1991 with the gov. trying to recover 1.5 billion dollars for the last twenty years from Boeing and someone else. Not successfully so far….something to do with state secrets…????
It is hard for me to call SS a pet program and a simple hardcore constituency. If the numbers were different maybe, or welfare, or not taxed with a promise to dedicate the continuance of the program, and necessary to millions.
CoRev, you are correct about Treasury auctions. I was actually thinking of the choice between spending the Trust Fund surplus or selling marketable Treasuries.
At http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/usa-fed-foreigners-idUSNLLADE7VW20110210 it is reported that “
The breakdown of custody holdings showed overseas central banks’ holdings of Treasury debt rose by $11.4 billion to stand at $2.618 trillion.
Foreign institutions’ holdings of securities issued or guaranteed by the biggest U.S. mortgage financing agencies, including Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB), fell by $2.65 billion to stand at $749.1 billion.
Overseas central banks, particularly those in Asia, have been huge buyers of U.S. debt in recent years, and own over a quarter of marketable Treasuries. China and Japan are the two biggest foreign holders of Treasuries.”
This is a lot of money. Nevertheless, when we’re talking about SS, the question needn’t be “How can we pay that back with SS money [and kill 2 birds with one stone]?”
CoRev: “NO, I will ask you, do you believe we are approaching a budget/deficit problem in the US?”
Yes. The Republicans are siphoning money to the rich and doing their best to give us inadequate and inept gov’t.
CoRev: “If you do, how does SS play into that impending problem?”
The Reps are continuing to spread lies about it, to scare people and convince them that it is broken, or will be soon.
“Just like I don’t think you have any argument with the fact that the general funds is in total disarray and neither party is serious about dealing with it.” Buff
Yes, a general point of agreement though I can’t say that I know what it is the CoRev agrees with. Certainly I was not seriously suggesting that military pensions that have been earned be diminished in any way. Nor would I suggest any reduction of VA funding. More funds are more likely the better route. What pisses me off is that CoRev persistently avoids the direct and most appropriate means of budgetary reform, raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. They have been enjoying a tax holiday for far too long a time. The idea that inheritance and dividend incomes are given very preferential treatment is absurd. Unearned income is taxed more leniently than income from labor. That’s a cruel joke that I wish the so called heartland folks would better understand.
And get the hell out of the middle east war games. It’s immoral and profits only the war industry. A balanced budget is only a problem if you think that those who can shouldn’t.
And keep Social Security as it has always been intended. It is the life blood of the elderly poor and middle class. More so now than ever before.
Min, the Deficit Commission was the latest bi-partisan group that has highlighted the budget/deficit issue and how the entitlements affect it.
I was taught way bakc in the 60s that entitlements ouel eat up the bulk of the budget. Today, we are spending ~90% of our available revenues on entitlements/mandatory spending. Just one more small economic shock will drive it over 100%. SS is not the issue but excessive spending on entitlements/mandatories is. As nearly the equvalent of discretionary portion of the budget must be borrowed.
LindaR, is someone proposing: “ Nevertheless, when we’re talking about SS, the question needn’t be “How can we pay that back with SS money [and kill 2 birds with one stone]?””?
Pie fight!
And except for my little buddy I didn’t have to contribute much in the way of pie. But my most recent post should get some temple veins throbbing. Enjoy!
Jack said: “I can’t say that I know what it is the CoRev agrees with. Certainly I was not seriously suggesting that military pensions that have been earned be diminished in any way. Nor would I suggest any reduction of VA funding.” What i beleive is that wea re near a tipping point where the borrowing for the budget will be out of control. At that p[oint we will be looking at all your listed programs, and every other line item in the budget for cutting.
If you haven’t noticed, Obvama campaigned on doing just that: “During The Campaign, President Obama Pledged To “Go Line By Line” And “Eliminate Programs That Don’t Work.” Obama: “I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work, and make sure that those that do work work better and cheaper.” (Sen. Barack Obama, NBC Presidential Debate, Nashville, TN, 10/7/08)”
Jack said: “I can’t say that I know what it is the CoRev agrees with. Certainly I was not seriously suggesting that military pensions that have been earned be diminished in any way. Nor would I suggest any reduction of VA funding.”
What I believe is that we are near a tipping point where the borrowing for the budget will be out of control. At that point we will be looking at all your listed programs, and every other line item in the budget for cutting. Or as Dale said pay cash, we will be doing the equivalent step to prioritize who/what we write checks.
If you haven’t noticed, Obama campaigned on doing just that: “During The Campaign, President Obama Pledged To “Go Line By Line” And “Eliminate Programs That Don’t Work.” Obama: “I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work, and make sure that those that do work work better and cheaper.” (Sen. Barack Obama, NBC Presidential Debate, Nashville, TN, 10/7/08)”
CoRev
the deficit commission was rigged and lied about the defict and tried to “fix” it by cutting social security which has nothing to do with the deficit.
that you were “taught” that “entitlements will eat up.. the budget” tells me you went to a third rate school. in an honest school they would have let you learn facts and think about them, not fed you political pablum.
your crackpot parsing of the budget is getting tedious. look at what the money is spent on. look at what we need. then look at how much money we have. any honest look at American wealth will tell you that we have more money than we know how to spend, but everyone… D as well as R… thinks the answer is lower taxes for them but higher taxes for someone else. THAT’s the “budget problem.”
CoRev
your arguments are all idiotic. just read any thread in which you have commented. feel free to start with this one.
Social Security works. And it pays for itself.
Linda – I wuold like to read the article you quote, but the link goes to a pg at credit writdowns that says, “nothing found.”
Coud you repost?
Thanx
JzB
CoRev —
Go back to the start of this tread, where I made my original comment.
Here – let me help you (lie in bold italics, for your convenience) :
Sammy, they go blithley skipping down the road, fingers in their ears, singing La-la, la-la, la-la…. Few want to admit when their generation old policies are proven to be unsustainable, but we see it over and over with the left.
Here we have
1) ridicule that is nebulous and vague (la-la-la.) By that I mean there is no clear point. This is a grade school approach to discourse.
2) the regurgitated lie
3) a vague accusation (over and over)
Congratulations though, on thoroughly hijacking this thread. Back when it started, it was
about something important. Now, it’s all about you.
This is what makes you a troll.
You see, there’s a difference between name-calling and acurate characterization.
Cheers!
JzB a proud SS recipient
It hardly seems reasonable to characterize promised care for seriveices rendered as “pet programs.” More along the lines of contractual obligations – no?
Cheers!
JzB
sorry, jazzbumpa, I see that the final “)” got into the link.
This one should work: http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/02/corporatism-masquerading-as-liberty.html
You know, that “generation old policies” line has been bothering me since I first read it. My great grandmother collected Social Security, as did my grandparents, and my parents. I will be the fourth generation in my family to collect – and it’s coming faster than I’d like. 😉 Sounds pretty sustainable to me.
30 years ago, in the lead up to the Greenspan Commission, I was worried that maybe I’d never see a dime. And here I am. The only doubt I have about it now arises out of concern that the smear campaign will result in changes that affect even people too close to collecting to have any alternatives. But even Paul Ryan says he wouldn’t cut people my age off, so it’s a pretty remote possiblity.
If sensible adjustments of the type recommended by Coberly, Bruce, and many others, were implemented, I would feel confident that my daughter will collect as well… except of course that the opponents of the program never give up.
THAT is why it’s necessary to respond to every lie, every distortion, and each and every propaganda campaign against it. It’s necessary to educate each successive generation on how and WHY the program works. It’s also important to inform them about who is behind the opposition, as well as about their tactics. Otherwise, they will be vulnerable to the counter-factual, nonsensical, made-up arguments against it.
Dale, as I thought, you have nothing to support your claim.
Belief in the tipping point that the debt is dangerous is one thing, but you have not established the accuracy of that claim Corev, nor has sammy. And I agree with jazz….the use of the word pet to trivialize.
It comes down to the all is fungible argument I think..,which is actually wrong…
The fact that you fear is apparent but there is no offer of any plan to address your fear…come on corev, why you don’t address your main fear is beyond me. SS is such a side issue in that regard…
The thread gets so twisted up people can;t tell what is being argued or proposed. Put up or shut up please.
JzB, let me point out Bruce’s latest thread, and his “troll” thread, and the many times a conservative have been called names here.
You showed I said: “Few want to admit when their generation old policies are proven to be unsustainable, but we see it over and over with the left.” claiming it is a lie. One of the core political differences between the political parties is a lie? Poor choice of words.
Ridicule? Probably. Regurgitated/repeated, absolutely, because we fail to discuss the real issue the budget/deficit.
Your vague lie comment is the amazing part or your comment. This is to what I was responding: “However, the rest of the Federal Budget is less financially sound than ever. Other social programs will need to be cut dramatically, or taxes raised dramatically. However, this does not concern Bruce Webb in the least.” If that is your vague lie, then you appear to be in denial.
Protect SS all you want. That’s fine. But, failing to recognize the budget issues associated with that strategy is just nutty politics. Writing an article that is based upon a 2005 news article serves what purpose in today’s political arena?
JzB, let me point out Bruce’s latest thread, and his “troll” thread, and the many times conservatives have been called names here.
You showed I said: “Few want to admit when their generation old policies are proven to be unsustainable, but we see it over and over with the left.” claiming it is a lie. One of the core political differences between the political parties is a lie? Poor choice of words.
Ridicule? Probably. Regurgitated/repeated, absolutely, because we fail to discuss the real issue the budget/deficit.
Your vague lie comment is the amazing part or your comment. This is to what I was responding: “However, the rest of the Federal Budget is less financially sound than ever. Other social programs will need to be cut dramatically, or taxes raised dramatically. However, this does not concern Bruce Webb in the least.” If that is your vague lie, then you appear to be in denial, the basis of the La, la, la comment.
Protect SS all you want. That’s fine. But, failing to recognize the budget issues associated with that strategy is just nutty politics. Writing an article that is based upon a 2005 news article serves what purpose in today’s political arena?
Let me ask this question: How many actually support Dale’s assertions?
Dale’s assertions: “the deficit commission was rigged and lied about the defict and tried to “fix” it by cutting social security which has nothing to do with the deficit. ”
I love this comment Dale. Saying this: “you can’t come in here and call us communists and turn around and say you are “agonstic (sic)” on SS”
When I actually said: “Why do liberals and other leftists, think that socialism and communism work?” Dale, you are finally admitting your true liberal/leftist beliefs after denying over, and over that you are not.
JzB, refer back to my constituency comment. They, each and every, program is a “pet program” to its supporting constituency. Don’t add more value than that meaning.
As far as “contractual obligation” refer back to Dan’s, Buff’s and my commentary on its all just politics. The lawmakers and changers are those responsible for creating those contracts, and that’s the crux of the these many SS discussions.
Who here say otherwise?
Dan, I have offered two or three plans. I have commented on the ridiculed Ryan (R) plan and commented on the Schakowsky (D) plan without ridicule.
Furthermore, I have tried on several occasions to have a discussion over that ole feared budget/deficit issue and we fall back on this political “third rail” issue.
Because of these failures to actually discuss the budget/deficit issue with specific articles here and many other blogs (reference my Open Thread comment), failure to get most to admit here in my many attempts is a problem leads me to assume Dems are in denial that it even is an issue.
Asking me to establish the accuracy of the claim we may be at a tipping point flies in the face of current political debate. The thread gets twisted because the subject (budget/deficit/mandatory & discretionary spending) is so rife with misinformation and hyperbole.
I am still laying out an article.
That is the purpose of a post….to state the topic…the topic here is SS and its workability as a program, not the’ cliff of debt service.’ If we fall off a cliff we have far more serious problems than an SS check, although SS could self fund at a high percentage payout and continue on without the trust fund if the general fund froze up.
We do know in the politics of the day our leaders would grab at anything like a drowning person, and I do not think saving seniors from poverty would be their first or fifth thought.
LindaR, said: “I was actually thinking of the choice between spending the Trust Fund surplus or selling marketable Treasuries. ” and that is one of the baic misconceptions, and why IO continue to poound the budget/deficit issue.
The choice is actually between paying from the available budget revenue and borrowing (selling even more treasuries) when redeeming SSTF treasuries. What happens when we sell Fed treasuries for the SSTF redemptions? We raise the *total deficit, but not necessarily the debt (I’ll let Bruce explain why that happens.) When we pay for those redemptions out of available revenues we crowd out spending on the other programs. Some of which are other entitlements.
* Total Deficit
The total deficit (which is often just called the ‘deficit’) is spending, plus interest payments on the debt, minus tax revenues.
From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit
Dan, I agree with what you said here with the exception of the purpose of the article. A reminder of how Bruce started the article: “Why? Just because. Plus Dean was warning about some sort of housing bubble at the time. How nutty was that?”
and ended it: “The impending crisis of Social Security is a myth. Without it, however, Bush’s initiative to slash benefits and partially privatize the program wouldn’t have a prayer.”
What I, and I am presumning here, Sammy, are responding to was the: “…warning about some sort of housing bubble at the time. How nutty was that?” How nutty is it to concentrate on SS when many, many are warning about an impending budget/deficit melt down.
CoRev
actually, i have answered almost every idiotic comment you have made here. the fact that you can’t understand or remember suggests there would not be much gained by my repeating them.
this is CoRev “never said that”:
Jack: Are you putting military pensions and the cost of maintaining the VA health care system into the deficit control mix? If not, why not?Yesterday, 10:49:39 AM PST– ReplyCoRev
Jack, yes, cut them! We can do it now, when we can control the cutting and phase it, or we can wait till it’s too late and let the new buyers and potential new buyers of our ever growing Treasuries dictate. The worst case is that they stop buying them all together no matter the interest.
Because CoRev
the many who are warning about a budget melt down are blaming it on Social Security and using it as an excuse to cut or gut Social Security.
your pretending or refusing to see this is why i call you an idiot.
Dan, I agree with what you said here with the exception of the purpose of the article. A reminder of how Bruce started the article: “Why? Just because. Plus Dean was warning about some sort of housing bubble at the time. How nutty was that?”
What I responded to was the: “…warning about some sort of housing bubble at the time. How nutty was that?” How nutty is it to concentrate on SS when the president and many, many others are concerned about an impending budget/deficit melt down.
And, I responded to Sammy’s comment to: “The bottom line is that Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history,…”, a corollary to my issue.
Is that off topic?
What we have here is…
Either
a) A single-minded and determined effort to turn the thread into a discussion of the budget, which is obviously the over-riding concern (obsession?) of one poster.
AND/or
b) evidence of some sort of deficit of understanding when it comes to the topic of the original post – perhaps due to the subtlety (go ahead and laugh, Bruce… you know you love the irony) of that post.
We had a President who decided that one of the best responses to a Saudi Muslim fundamentalist’s attack on the World Trade Center was to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein – and to do so off budget. Behind every seemingly non-sensical non-responsive act, there is motive to be found.
Linda,
Sorry, but it was all on-budget. That’s what all the supplementals did. (Of which the Democrats and Reps agreed on overwelmingly to pass for years). The idea that this money was not accounted for is nuts. What it wasn’t done was passed as part of the usual DoD appropriations bill. The idea we didn’t pay for the prior and current combat operations in the ME is pure fiction.
As for your comment about single-minded obsession – I would say that describes coberly and to a lessor extent Bruce perfectly. They can barely admit that the general fund will soon (already?) send money (via bond redemptions) to cut SS checks.
SS is only an issue as the current Democrat President (appointer of the Obama catfood commission) and democrat congress-critters see it as another revenue stream to help balance the budget. That this is not only not wise for a plethora of fiscal reasons but morally wrong, amounts to naught. Obama is looking at a $1.5 Trillion deficit and 10% unemployment with less than 2 year before the elction that he would like to win.
How he plans to deal with it is a political question and SS, right or wrong, is unfortanately in the mix. But you guys elected the least experienced name on the tickets to be President.
I have always planned my retirement assuming no SS, even before I found AB. I will continue to plan that way since if I get it it will be a nice windfall. Otherwise I still don’t get hurt. YMMV.
Islam will change
“I will continue to plan that way since if I get it it will be a nice windfall. Otherwise I still don’t get hurt. YMMV.” Buff
That, for whatever reason, you had made the decision not to rely on an annuity pay out that you have been paying for for so many years doesn’t mean that you don’t suffer the loss. Had you been paying the equivalent amount from each paycheck to a private annuity, your IRA, your 401K, or any such investment would you still feel unhurt if the investment fund went pop? Think of all of the unknowing investors in the recently unveiled scams as the Madoff fund. Why is the dissolution of Social Security any different? It is a legally structured program, as are the private plans, and the participants suffer the loss whether they can take it or not.
I’m yet to get a reasonable response to the question regarding the legal sanctity of the Trust Fund securities and how that status differs from any other Treasury securities. And while we’re thinking about it, why not dissolve the military pension plan and the VA health care system? Why are old soldiers any more deserving of an anti abject poverty level of retirement than any other elder?
Oh, one other slightly off topic, but very much related, thought. I’ve been a bit busy at work these past couple of days. That’s why I’ve been lax in taking part in the discussions. You see the very wealthy still have plenty of disposable income for hot and expensive cars. In fact I just learned today that the 6000 GVW SUVs have had their accelerated depreciation benefit extended. Cars and trucks in excess of $60,000 are still moving well. Those over the $100,000 level aren’t too terribly stalled either.
The point? It’s always good to remeber that tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans only benefit a very limited sector of the economy. I happen to work that sector. Unfortunately my taxes aren’t as well guarded so I’ll be giving back most of the extra income.
So keep in mind that when everyone is screaming bloody bejezzes about the deficit there is a fund of untaxed wealth out there, and it’s pretty substantial.
Got it. Thanx,
JzB
hmmm… Of course we paid for it! In lives as well as treasure/debt. But not
through any normal budgeting process where adjustments could be made or
trade-offs debated. Those supplementals were presented with an implied “do you
support the troops/love your country or don’t you?” And so they passed.
I’ll let Bruce and coberly speak for themselves, but for my part I’d say that
I’ve seen the subject of bond redemptions addressed as part of the process and
the accounting – more than once – here.
As for SS being threatened by elected officials, I think that’s an area of rare
bi-partisanship. The Dems have allowed it to be degraded by a tax holiday and
the Reps just want to kill it in its present form – some out of ideology and
others with lobbying $$$ in their eyes – and stand ready to jump on any opening
the Dems give them. Unfortunately, that’s happening way too often these days.
And based on their regurgitation of the anti-SS talking points, some of the
Dems (including Obama) don’t appear to be committed to SS in a way that would
preserve the current program as is – or else they are ignorant and unwilling to
learn.
It does seem to me that some Dems are already sensing that their voters would
not accept the scapegoating of SS (see Harry Reid). The almost constant
repetition of the fact that SS did not cause our problems, including the
deficit, and that there is no immediate crisis, is necessary to keep that
pressure on. Keeping the truth alive about the program’s history, how it works,
and its actual financial situation, requires revisiting the topic frequently.
As for the politics leading up to the ’12 election, going against SS would be
very risky for Obama given the nature of the “most likely voter” bloc –
especially in the Dem Party. If the Reps can convince the current recipients
that they’re “grandfathered” (no pun intended) but that their children and
grandchildren will be screwed, it might change their votes, and more likely
change their support for the program, but I’m not sure 20 months is enough time
to do that. As for Obama, I’m more determined to be a thorn in his side than to
defend him on SS.
Buff
“coberly … single minded obsession… barely admit that gen fun will send money to SS”
buff. this is crap. of course i have an obsession with SS. it’s under attack. no one understands it. it is hugely important.
but “barely admit”? i have “admitted” that the gen fund needs to repay SS since my first post here. what i have also pointed out is that SS recipients would be better off to let the congress steal the Trust Fund and just pay the bills themselves, on the idea that it’s better to be robbed than to be robbed and murdered.
is it better to have an obsession or to be so blind you can’t see or so forgetful you can’t remember?
you are lucky to be one of those who doesn’t have to count on SS. 80% of workers are not so lucky.
jack
careful. you will get responses to the questioin of legal sanctity… but they won’t be reasonable.
the fact is congress makes the law and can change it. the point is that if they change it they are stealing money from the people who paid their Federal Insurance Contribution on the promise that the money would be used to pay for their pensions when they needed it.
Guest = me.
Jack,
The reason that the this tax cut stimulates only a limited sector of the economy, is that it is narrowing targeted to that limited sector – the one you work in. Specifically it is accelerated depreciation that speeds up the tax write off for investing in captial equipment.
If you want to broaden the stimulus, don’t target the tax cut so narrowly.
juan –
Good catch. Here is the opening paragaph.
The latest assessment of Social Security by the American public continues to reflect the strong support that has also characterized three earlier assessments. All four AARP surveys—conducted to celebrate the 50th (1985), 60th (1995), 70th (2005), and 75th (2010) anniversaries of Social Security’s founding—have demonstrated the high regard that the American public has for Social Security as an important American institution, not only for America’s retired citizens, but for the entire American adult population.
Pretty inconsistent with this naked assertion fron CoRev:
In a purely academic setting we have the discussion of countervailing forces, and all of the many forces are gathering to protect their “pet programs.” What is now different is that SS is diminishing in its prominence, and SS is falling back to a level approaching (not yet at) that of the every other “pet programs.”
Cheers!
JzB
and, buff
if you are saying that the general fund having trouble paying back the money it borrowed from Social Security is a reason to cut Social Security
remind me never to lend you money.
I know people like that in real life. They are moral defectives. A drag to have to deal with.
well, sammy
i’d say the opposite is true… if you want to cut the deficit, raise taxes. and don’t target the raise so narrowly.
i get a little tired of “liberals” shooting themselves in the foot (head? mouth?) by calling for tax raises on “the rich.” the rich need to pay their share (yes, that progressive share), but there needs to be a little moral responsibility in the ranks of the not-rich.
even the dirt poor can pay a little. but the poor middle class can sure as hell afford another percent or two to pay for all the things they want from government.
coberly,
What part of $1.5T deficit in 2011 do you not understand?* Federal Tax Revenues = $2.2T, Expenditures = $3.7T. So we are spending $1.60 for every $1.00 in revenues.
The government has made lots of promises to a lot of people. Widows, orphans, single moms, sick, elderly, veterans, farmers, International allies etc. etc. Why do you hold them only to the promise to SS recipients? Oh yeah, besides that you are one of them.
* Please do not respond with your 3% tax hike will solve the budget problem.
The big square in Cairo–Tahir, Taker–I’m too lazy to look it up. I wonder if 200 years from now, there will be a political clique lying abut what is happening today in the same manner the so-called “tea bags” lie about the original Boston “tea party.”
I have fingered out what is wrong with Republibags and will share it. They have absolute faith in the religion that only the government can be a threat to personal freedom and liberty. They believe that it literally is not possible for anyone other than the government to infringe on our freedom and rights.
Which is why they so strongly support enslavement of the rest of us by corporate tyrants.
Let’s use an historical example. There were literally no limitations on what one could do to one’s slaves in the Republic and early Imperial Roman. The Romans had a rigid definition of property. Something belonged to yhou only if you could use it anyway you wanted to and could destroy it if you so wished. Slaves were property, so one could do anything to them one wanted to.
Then in the 2nd century, some of the emperors were soft-hearted Liberals and made some laws limiting property rights when it came to human property. For example, one emperor issued a law that if one murdered his slave, he would have to pay a fine equal to the value of the slave–as if he had killed someone else’s slave.
Every conservative” and tea bag in 2011 would applaud the early period and curse the emperors for infringing on the freedom and liberty of the slave owners. For the government, they believe, is the only possible enemy of human liberty and human happiness..
JzB, some one who ignores the subject of a sentence to make a point is commonly called many bad names. Why did you ignore: “their generation old policies…” Policies is both plural and not just SS, nor is 75 years normally called a generation.
Saying that there are no budget issues associated with SS ignores this weekend’s thread. It can and as of last year does add to the deficit. Apparently increasing the deficit is not a budget issue for you, but your insistence is why we keep bringing it up. They are no longer separate. And millions of American voters know that. They have stopped listening to that “Big Lie.”
JzB, really: “Pretty inconsistent with this naked assertion fron CoRev:
…
What is now different is that SS is diminishing in its prominence, and SS is falling back to a level approaching (not yet at) that of the every other “pet programs.”
What part of the countervailing forces theory is so hard? You jumped on the forces which is defined by one constituency, while completely ignoring the countervailing constituency. You do do know who makes up that one?
Jan,
……enslavement of the rest of us by corporate tyrants.
You are wrong about this. The only way businesses can survive is to please us. We have a choice whether to give them our money or not. Here is a link that shows the evolution of the components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1896. http://www.quasimodos.com/info/dowhistory.html The Index is composed of some of the largest and most powerful companies at the time. See how they die out?
If you think of all the most horrible acts of mankind on each other, you usually find the hand of a dictator using the power of a central government. Think WWII if you need an example. We don’t have a choice whether to obey them or not. Never has a “corporation” been the cause of so much suffering as the most minor tin pot dictator.
So are the wealthy paying their share? Federal revenues 2009 and 2010 were less than 15 percent of GDP for the first time since 1950, so somebody’s not paying their share. Hard to blame the unemployed (they aren’t adding to the GDP). It’s hard to blame low-wage workers who are still paying their SS taxes. Dividends, executive-level pay, proprietors’ incomes, corporatate profits, capital gains?
Aw C’mon Sammy, are you forgetting, Stalin, Inc. and Pol Pot, Corp. Adolph and Friends, Incorporated, Mao,Bros, Inc.and well you get the picture. How many millions of poor souls lost can we attribute to those enslaving corporate tyrants?
jan814, may be the leader in the AB most bizarre posting contest.
We’re talking about different choices here, CoRev. Mine was in the past, regarding what they did with Trust Fund Money they got in return for the Special Treasuries. They knew they had to pay that back. Yours is in the present, regarding how they will redeem those Special Treasuries.
And yes, no matter how they redeem them, unless their receipts/revenues go up, the money will impact some other program (not limited to entitlements). No doubt that could be the subject of a raft of posts when the specifics are being debated.
But that’s not the subject of this thread.
And if they attempt to refuse to pay what’s owed by changing SS, I will be here to point out that whatever they do going forward doesn’t change the prior obligation taken on when they issued those Special Treasuries. Their debt to the SSTF is no less legitimate than their debt to China or to a wealthy retiree holding T-Bonds. Not paying it is default.
“the fact is congress makes the law and can change it. the point is that if they change it they are stealing money from the people who paid their Federal Insurance Contribution on the promise that the money would be used to pay for their pensions when they needed it.” coberly
That was and has been my basic point in these many discussions. The Trust Fund securities are no less a legal obligation than are any other Treasuries whether they are held by China, Japan, Citibank, Goldman, Sachs or each and every private individual. Can Congress legislate the termination of a legal debt? Maybe so, I’m not an expert on such an issue. And if Congress should legislate the termination of the Trust Fund securities, an absurd concept, what market effect would that have on all other forms of Treasury securities? I can’t say that such legislation is out of the question, but it is a dangerous step.
Again I ask CoRev and his cohorts, what are you contributing to the solution that you claim to seek? You’ve offered nothing in the way of concrete detail. You’ve only cried aloud about a deficit problem. Coberly, raising the taxes on the very wealthy is wholly appropriate as that is where the untaxed money lies. Estates, capital gains and dividends are treated as thoough they were a special status when it comes to taxed income. The rest of us are fools to accet that argument. Income is increasingly skewed to the smallest portion of the population with two or three percent taking such an enormous share of earned income that the tax base for the other 97% of earners can’t generate enough tax revenue to pay the bills. If Congress expects the support an economy which distorts its income distribution process then it is going to have to look to the group that has all the income in order to pay the costs of running the country. I’ll harp on those points until some one can make a valid argument against them.
CoRev, What about that military pension? What about that VA health care system? I personally think they’re sacrosanct. Though if you think it’s all on the table so that the vaunted tax cuts and the adventures in the middle east are untouchable, maybe you think that what is worth while should be sacrificed.
CR,
jan814, may be the leader in the AB most bizarre posting contest.
I see a lot of similar comments from Libs here on AB. For some reason they think goverments are benevolent, and corporations are evil. History says the opposite is true.
Jack, I’m sorry for your memory retention problems, but I have presented no less than three plans. Continuosly trying to make a point that is not in contentions is foolish: “The Trust Fund securities are no less a legal obligation than are any other Treasuries whether they are held by China, Japan, Citibank, Goldman, Sachs or each and every private individual. Can Congress legislate the termination of a legal debt? Maybe so, I’m not an expert on such an issue. …” I can’t say that such legislation is out of the question, but it is a dangerous step. Yup!!!!! Dangerous politically and economically, and if it was done would be done because the other dangers were higher. That’s been our point. We then go off into the inevitable “we’re more caring than you — look how we want to save SS, or …” discussion. (See your I personally think they’re sacrosanct.)
If we are in the economic conditions requiring cutting them, we will be long past defining sacrosanct programs and well into self preservation mode. And That’s also been our point. Along with doing something is better now than when it’s too late!
Jack, I’m sorry for your memory retention problems, but I have presented no less than three plans. Continuosly trying to make a point that is not in contentions is foolish: “The Trust Fund securities are no less a legal obligation than are any other Treasuries whether they are held by China, Japan, Citibank, Goldman, Sachs or each and every private individual. Can Congress legislate the termination of a legal debt? Maybe so, I’m not an expert on such an issue. … I can’t say that such legislation is out of the question, but it is a dangerous step.”
Yup!!!!! Dangerous politically and economically, and if done would be because the other dangers were higher. That’s been our point. We then go off into the inevitable “we’re more caring than you — look how we want to save SS, or …” discussion. (See your: I personally think they’re sacrosanct.)
If we are in the economic conditions requiring cutting them, we will be long past defining sacrosanct programs and well into self preservation mode. And That’s also been our point. Along with doing something now is better than when it’s too late!
pjr
i agree about that. it’s just that it doesn’t work, politically or morally, to call for tax raises on the other guy without being willing to accept a tax raise on yourself.
and SS is not a tax. it’s you paying for your own retirement insurance. you get the money back, with interest.
sammy
you need to read a little history. there have always been crooked businessmen, and very dangerous corporations.
we need to keep government under control. but we need government to keep the other bad guys under control.
in fact if you are not careful big business BECOMES the government. you won’t like that.
jack
i agree. but the point i try to make about taxing the rich is that it doesn’t work if everyone else is saying “but don’t tax me.”
CoRev
that has never been your point. your point has been to try to sow confusion about the current legal status of Social Security… pretending that it is not by law and established practice separate from “the budget” and the “budget deficit.”
Whatever happens to “the government” short of collapse, Social Security can continue to pay for itself.
It is impossible that we could ever reach a time where we needed the people’s retirement money to pay for “the government.”
sammy
you keep saying this. but there is no evidence anyone here on AB thinks governments are benevolent or that corporations are evil. There is some evidence that we think some politicians are evil.
Everyone else is being taxed. That is the point. When there is talk of cutting some group’s source of income in order to avoid raising sone other group’s tax responsibility the ressult is the same. The former group has seen a reduction of income which is the equivalent of raising that group’s taxes. The latter group has had an increase in income asa result of avoiding raising their taxes.
CoRev, you have offered nothing more than vague suggestions regarding what is expendable in the name of fiscal responsibility. You avoid being specific in order to avoid playing your cards. i’ve been to the point. cut military spending down to defense rather than aggression. Raise taxes back to what ever point is required to pay for the government activities that so well benefit the wealthiest Americans.
Jack, please understand how lidicours this sounds: “CoRev, you have offered nothing more than vague suggestions regarding what is expendable in the name of fiscal responsibility.”
And then offer up something even less specific: “cut military spending down to defense rather than aggression. Raise taxes back to what ever point is required to pay for the government activities that so well benefit the wealthiest Americans.”
OK, how much is your defense cut? You should have that at your fingertips. I do. And how much is that portion of the budget so well benefit the wealthiest Americans. That too must be a simple calculation. I can guessestimate it, can you? After those cuts how much of the annual deficit is left? Because, Jack, you have forgotten to pay for all the remaining essential programs that so well benefit the less than wealthy.
How many times do you need to be told that we are short ~$.40 for every dollar spent. Cut spending, raise revenues, and/or both, but stop the BS. Either you have a plan, even at high levels, that can be estimated or you do not. At this point you do not have a plan that gets us close to balancing the budget, Which is short by $1.5T in FY2011.
Jack, please understand how ludicours this sounds: “CoRev, you have offered nothing more than vague suggestions regarding what is expendable in the name of fiscal responsibility.”
And then you offer up something even less specific: “cut military spending down to defense rather than aggression. Raise taxes back to ?what ever point? is required to pay for the government activities that so well benefit the wealthiest Americans.”
OK, how much is your defense cut? You should have that at your fingertips. I do. And how much is that portion of the budget so well benefit the wealthiest Americans. That too must be a simple calculation. I can guessestimate it, can you? After those cuts how much of the annual deficit is left? Because, Jack, you have forgotten to pay for all the remaining essential programs that so well benefit the less than wealthy.
How many times do you need to be told that we are short ~$.40 for every dollar spent. Cut spending, raise revenues, and/or both, but stop the BS. Either you have a plan, even at high levels, that can be estimated or you do not. At this point you do not have a plan that gets us close to balancing the budget, Which is short by $1.5T in FY2011.
Dale, that has always been out point. Protecting SS has been yours and the others, but you are using us a proxies for your anger. We are not capable, ever proposed, or recommended SS be cut, but because you are incapable of separating your ego from SS you continuously read these absurdities into our comments.
We are approaching a tipping point where: we will be in the economic conditions requiring cutting them, we will be long past defining sacrosanct programs and well into self preservation mode. And That’s also been our point. Along with doing something now is better than when it’s too late!
Jack,
Trust Fund securities are no less a legal obligation than are any other Treasuries whether they are held by China, Japan, Citibank, Goldman, Sachs or each and every private individual.
There is a reason when looking at country debt that analysts look at “Debt Held by the Public.” and exclude “Intra Governmental Debt.” That is because Intra Governmental Debt can be erased with a stroke of a pen with virtually no consequences. If they were to default on Debt held by the Public there would be definite consequences: fewer lenders, and higher rates.
And if Congress should legislate the termination of the Trust Fund securities, an absurd concept, what market effect would that have on all other forms of Treasury securities?
If Congress were to erase the Special Treasuries, removing a $2.5T obligation from the Treasury and improving the position of Regular Treasuries, the markets would stand up and cheer.
You are an ass. Sepecific dollar and cents amount is what you want? To what end, and when did you ever talk in such specific terms. You can’t even delineate what government programs should be trimmed back. It is not our position to provide irrelevant specifics. You are simply avoidiing the fact that the elephant in the busget debate is the military and the limited tax share paid by the wealthy.
You are the fool that Coberly continuously recognizes as such. Welch on one debt and your other debtors will celebrate. Sop much for the “full faith and credit of the US government.”
“Dale’s assertions: “the deficit commission wasrigged and lied about the defict and tried to “fix” it by cutting social security which has nothing to do with the deficit. ”
First, almost all commissions in Washington are rigged. The news is when they are not.
Second, social security has something to do with the deficit. Social security is in surplus. 🙂
Third, Simpson lied. (And he seems like such a nice guy.) 🙁
I think the author’s projections of future prosperity are overly optimistic. There are plenty of reasons to believe that we will not be as wealthy per capita in the future than we are right now. Its kind of like saying: “I can afford that big new house, not on the salary I have now but on that big promotion I just know I’m going to get in a few years.”
“imilarly, the Social Security trust fund will have more than $3.7 trillion in today’s dollars in 2018. Combined with payroll tax revenues, that is enough to cover promised benefits until 2042, the trustees’ report says.”
The problem with that is that the money that supposidly should be in the Social Security Fund has already been spent as many administrations have used that money by replacing it with IOU’s while increasing the spending of the general fund in the process.
The Bill Gates analysis is very flawed, it’s not like Bill Gates spent all his money replacing his savings account with IOU’s. Sure, the IOU’s should be there but how can you call it available and not of an issue when it 1) has already been spent, 2) has been replaced with an IOU, and 3) the US doens’t have a budget surplus to compensate for the money that the IOU’s will cost in the future. You cannot call debt cash and neither does the IOU’s in the Social Security Fund make the Social Security Ponzi System any more viable.
(my previous comment got posted twice, so I deleted one and both got deleted, so if this is dublicate content I apologize)
The Bill Gates analysis is very flawed. First, the Social Security System is a Ponzi scheme as the investor return depends on more investors participating in the scheme. The returns don’t make sense from a fundamental return perspective as the majority of people take out signifcant amounts more than they put in. Further, many administrations have borrowed against the Social Security Fund to boost the spending in the general fund. Or they borrowed against the SS fund in order to give the impression that they “balanced” the budget. The Social Seucrity Fund should have reserves but don’t reserves have already been spent and replaced with IOU’s. Now, if the USA would run budget surplusses it would be no problem to make up for this. The problem is that not only is the Social Security Fund running deficits but the Nation is running trillions of dollars in yearly budget deficits as well. The only way the USA can pay on their Social Security promises is thruogh further debasing of the currency which ultimately leads to massive inflation and/or hyperinflation.