Cut the Budget!

[Wry Catcher]

Problem is now government already has to pay more for it than it generates.

The recession made it go into bonds but it should be back to surplus this year. there have been other years where this has happened but for most of the history of the program, it has run surpluses. Social Security can in no way be blames for the national debt.

So anyway the SS has resulted in a lot of government surplus that should not be there, as it needs to be paid back to retirees when they retire.

::sigh:: What, you think they should have put the cash in a big vault somewhere? The surpluses were invested in special treasuries and have been collecting interest.

Social Security is not and never has been a Ponzi Scheme. It is an intergenerational transfer payment system and it has worked, marvelously. Before Social Security, almost 30% of seniors lived in poverty. Since Social Security, virtually none do.

Sadly your argument falls on deaf ears, callous conservatives don't care if seniors need to sell apples and pencils on the street. They simply don't care about others; for them, "it's all about me".

 

[Revere]

There is no Social Security surplus. It was stolen by the government, which is now $13T in debt.

Where is the "Social Security surplus?"

It doesn't exist. It's debt.

 

[Flopper]

Problem is now government already has to pay more for it than it generates.

The recession made it go into bonds but it should be back to surplus this year. there have been other years where this has happened but for most of the history of the program, it has run surpluses. Social Security can in no way be blames for the national debt.

So anyway the SS has resulted in a lot of government surplus that should not be there, as it needs to be paid back to retirees when they retire.

::sigh:: What, you think they should have put the cash in a big vault somewhere? The surpluses were invested in special treasuries and have been collecting interest.

Social Security is not and never has been a Ponzi Scheme. It is an intergenerational transfer payment system and it has worked, marvelously. Before Social Security, almost 30% of seniors lived in poverty. Since Social Security, virtually none do.

Sadly your argument falls on deaf ears, callous conservatives don't care if seniors need to sell apples and pencils on the street. They simply don't care about others; for them, "it's all about me".

If we are lucky enough we will all be there some day, both liberal and conservative. Those that advocate cutting Social Security, may well be the ones that will need it the most.

 

[loosecannon]

In 2011 the administration should increase their budget cuts to 50 billion from 20 billion.
Do an across the board cut of .5%.
This should reduce the deficited by 350 billion to the 1 trillion.

or actually half that much. $3.5 trillion x .995 = $3.4825 trillion

No changes in 2012

In 2013 budget eliminate the remaining stimulus funds. There is about 500 billion now. Also a .5% across the board cut should reduce the budget by another 250 billion.

or half that much

This would bring the deficit to 250 billion, 100 billion below the average deficit over the last 20 years.

The average deficit over the last 20 years is not acceptable for two reasons: we are in debt up to our eyeballs and we still face looming liabilities shortfalls in the range of $100 trillion over 40 years, or an average of $2.5 trillion/year.

So after accounting for errors and rejecting your targets we would still be running a $half trillion/year deficit.

Why don't we just end the two wars asap? And then adopt the plan prescribed by 3 former Senate finance committee members on another thread? $300 billion defense cuts for obsolete cold war armaments, a $1/gallon gas tax coupled with a mandate for doubling fuel economy, and an end to Bush's tax cuts among other remedies listed?

 

[loosecannon]

Social Security is not and never has been a Ponzi Scheme. It is an intergenerational transfer payment system and it has worked, marvelously. Before Social Security, almost 30% of seniors lived in poverty. Since Social Security, virtually none do.

It really hasn't worked at all. For a start initially SS payroll deductions were about 1.5%, now they have skyrocketed to more than 13%. Second it's entire surplus has been stolen and must be refinanced by future generations.

And if you think about it SS really DOES match the definition of a ponzi scheme or at least a ponzi like scheme, new investors paying the dividends of today's beneficiaries with no underlying engine of profit to support the returns. That's what a ponzi scheme is and that is what SS does.

 

[LiberalNut]

Where is the "Social Security surplus?"

In filing cabinets.

It doesn't exist. It's debt.

If you think federal treasuries aren't worth anything, I'll be glad to take yours off your hands.

Again, what did you think happened? The money you paid in taxes was stuffed in a vault somewhere to be saved for your retirement? What, the government SHOULD HAVE stuffed the money away in vaults and issued more debt to the public? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[LiberalNut]

It really hasn't worked at all.

I guess if you call pulling almost all seniors out of poverty, providing for the disabled and stabilizing aggregate demand thus decreasing the length, severity and frequency of economic downturns "not working", I'd have to agree. However, I don't accept that definition of "not working".

For a start initially SS payroll deductions were about 1.5%, now they have skyrocketed to more than 13%.

So what? That's more of a problem of worker to recipient ratio than anything else. There's an easy cure for this. Let in a wave of immigration and thus fix that ratio.

Second it's entire surplus has been stolen

That kind of hyperbolic rhetoric might work with ignorant wingnuts but don't expect it to fly with me. Again, if you think federal treasuries aren't worth anything, give yours to me.

new investors

Social Security is not an investment portfolio. It's an intergenerational transfer payment system. You don't get paid out of returns on your money, you get paid by future tax revenue. Ponzi Scemes are fraud. Social Security is a social welfare program. Big difference. Huge.

 

[Care4all]

It really hasn't worked at all.

I guess if you call pulling almost all seniors out of poverty, providing for the disabled and stabilizing aggregate demand thus decreasing the length, severity and frequency of economic downturns "not working", I'd have to agree. However, I don't accept that definition of "not working".

For a start initially SS payroll deductions were about 1.5%, now they have skyrocketed to more than 13%.

So what? That's more of a problem of worker to recipient ratio than anything else. There's an easy cure for this. Let in a wave of immigration and thus fix that ratio.

Second it's entire surplus has been stolen

That kind of hyperbolic rhetoric might work with ignorant wingnuts but don't expect it to fly with me. Again, if you think federal treasuries aren't worth anything, give yours to me.

new investors

Social Security is not an investment portfolio. It's an intergenerational transfer payment system. You don't get paid out of returns on your money, you get paid by future tax revenue. Ponzi Scemes are fraud. Social Security is a social welfare program. Big difference. Huge.

agree....it is like an annuity....they work about the same way...

SS has worked just fine.

however, i am saying the gvt is stealing the surplus from the worker IF the gvt decides to drastically modify and reduce benefits to the workers or kill the program as some have suggested.

I also believe that the bush administration did a "slight of hand" with the social security surplus....

They told the whole country back in 2001 that we had an estimate 5.6 trillion projected surplus in taxes (NOT mentioning the surplus in taxes in the budget CAME from SS) and told "the people" that they did not think the gvt should keep this money and that this surplus monies should be given back to "the people" via a tax cut....

so they got the bush tax cuts passed based on this surplus, but they gave the majority of the money from this surplus, to the top 2% of this country, in tax breaks for the wealthiest....when the wealthiest, for the most part DO NOT PAY social security on their entire income, if they pay in to it at all....for any of their money earned...(like warren buffet and gates etc, pay NO SS Tax because they pay themselves with Dividends etc.)

So, to me...this was STEALING the SS surpluses from the working man who pays the SS tax on their entire income and giving it to the wealthiest...a REVERSE ROBINHOOD.

this is why I do not have a problem with letting the tax cuts expire on the top 2% of earners.....they GOT the SS surpluses of which they did not pay in to for their entire income as a tax break!! and since SS needs to be payed back this money when they go to draw on it, I think it JUSTLY should be them, the top 2% that got the surplus money in tax breaks, to pay IT BACK.

 

[loosecannon]

Where is the "Social Security surplus?"

In filing cabinets.

It doesn't exist. It's debt.

If you think federal treasuries aren't worth anything, I'll be glad to take yours off your hands.

Again, what did you think happened? The money you paid in taxes was stuffed in a vault somewhere to be saved for your retirement? What, the government SHOULD HAVE stuffed the money away in vaults and issued more debt to the public? WTF is wrong with you?

They can't be redeemed unless another generation pays for them from tax receipts or deficits.

 

[Care4all]

Can't imagine what unemployment would be like now if there was not social security for the seniors.....imagine many of those seniors looking for work as well....

 

[loosecannon]

It really hasn't worked at all.

I guess if you call pulling almost all seniors out of poverty, providing for the disabled and stabilizing aggregate demand thus decreasing the length, severity and frequency of economic downturns "not working", I'd have to agree. However, I don't accept that definition of "not working".

For a start initially SS payroll deductions were about 1.5%, now they have skyrocketed to more than 13%.

So what? That's more of a problem of worker to recipient ratio than anything else. There's an easy cure for this. Let in a wave of immigration and thus fix that ratio.

worker to recipient ratio just passed it's all time peak about 5 years ago. We are still way above the mean line.

Second it's entire surplus has been stolen

That kind of hyperbolic rhetoric might work with ignorant wingnuts but don't expect it to fly with me. Again, if you think federal treasuries aren't worth anything, give yours to me.

STOLEN, as in there IS NO trust fund. In order to redeem those bonds a new generation has to pay for them all over again, as if they were never paid for in the first place. The proceeds from their original sale were all spent!

new investors

Social Security is not an investment portfolio. It's an intergenerational transfer payment system. You don't get paid out of returns on your money, you get paid by future tax revenue. Ponzi Scemes are fraud. Social Security is a social welfare program. Big difference. Huge.

Ponzi schemes only differentiate themselves from social security in that if you look deep enough you can discover that the SS trust fund doesn't exist. But in the case of literal ponzi schemes you don't find out that the funds don't exist until after the fact.

IOW for 90% of Americans SS fits the definition to a T. Even you don't yet realize that there is no trust fund.

 

[LiberalNut]

They can't be redeemed unless another generation pays for them from tax receipts or deficits.

Just like any other T-Bill. So what? If you don't think the full faith and credit of the United States is worth anything...give me your useless bonds! Again, WTF do you think should have been done with the money, stuff it in huge vaults somewhere? You aren't proving anything other than the fact that you're kinda financially illiterate.

 

[LiberalNut]

worker to recipient ratio just passed it's all time peak about 5 years ago.

Huh? In 1940, there were 159.4 workers paying taxes into the sytem for every person collecting benefits. 5 years ago, in 2005, there was only 3.3 workers for every recipient.

Social Security Online - HISTORY

The proceeds from their original sale were all spent!

No shit Sherlock! That's what a T-bill does. It takes the money and replaces it with a promise to pay, with interest, at a future date. It's called investing in the future. It;s what all bonds, public or private do. Again, what do you think should have been done with the money? Stick it in huge vaults?

if you look deep enough you can discover that the SS trust fund doesn't exist.

No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it does not become true. Of course there is a social security trust fund. Here, you can look at how the fund is doing. The trutees release a report every August...

Trustees Report on Social Security's Trust Fund

 

[loosecannon]

They can't be redeemed unless another generation pays for them from tax receipts or deficits.

Just like any other T-Bill. So what? If you don't think the full faith and credit of the United States is worth anything...give me your useless bonds! Again, WTF do you think should have been done with the money, stuff it in huge vaults somewhere? You aren't proving anything other than the fact that you're kinda financially illiterate.

You aren't providing anything other than to acknowledge that SS is bankrupt, assumed to be funded by ious that must be redeemed by the next generation since the original withholdings were all stolen. A veritable ponzi scheme.

And as for financial illiteracy, I still speak the language far better than you ever will.

 

[loosecannon]

worker to recipient ratio just passed it's all time peak about 5 years ago.

Huh? In 1940, there were 159.4 workers paying taxes into the sytem for every person collecting benefits. 5 years ago, in 2005, there was only 3.3 workers for every recipient.

the system had just been initiated in the 40's. Since then the largest population spike has been the baby boom who are only leaving the workforce in this decade. IOW whatever the ratio of input to output is now, or rather 5 years ago is as good as it will ever be again in the foreseeable future.

Social Security Online - HISTORY

The proceeds from their original sale were all spent!

No shit Sherlock! That's what a T-bill does. It takes the money and replaces it with a promise to pay, with interest, at a future date. It's called investing in the future. It;s what all bonds, public or private do. Again, what do you think should have been done with the money? Stick it in huge vaults?

That would have beat the hell outta spending the revenues and relying on future gens to cover them with ever larger SS withholdings and new taxes and deficits, yes!

Think about it, a shrinking workforce in a depressed economy is supposed to shoulder a burden that exacted 13% of our salaries and for the biggest generation in history. Even if the age for qualification is raised to 70 yoa that still may require SS withholdings to be raised to 25% of wages.

if you look deep enough you can discover that the SS trust fund doesn't exist.

No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it does not become true. Of course there is a social security trust fund.

NO

THERE

ISN'T

It doesn't exist. It's a talking point fixture with a fantasy existence.

NO revenues exist to cover the liabilities of the baby boom gen SS liabilities. NONE. Not a penny today, and SS is already costing more than it takes in 9 years ahead of schedule thanks to the recession.

NO TRUST FUND. Deal with it and stop lying.

 

[LiberalNut]

You aren't providing anything other than to acknowledge that SS is bankrupt

Are you on crack? For how long do you think SS has been redeeming bonds? Hmmm? Don't you realize that ALL SS taxes get converted to special treasuries and have been like forever? Current revenues don't pay for SS outlays. Current revenues buy bonds. Current outlays are paid by cashing old bonds. Bonds plus interest pay outlays. It's been that way almost from the beginning!

The system is not bankrupt. It has trillions of dollars of bonds sitting in it. If you think federal bonds are worthless, give me yours!

 

[Oddball]

Well, we all know the right wing religion. Revenue isn't the problem, spending is. Funny thing though, they never quite get around to telling you what spending they intend to cut to balance the budget, do they? Well, here's your chance. This year the budget is in deficit to the tune of about 1.29 trillion dollars (down about 8% from Bush's last budget BTW). Please tell me where you are going to find that much spending to cut. Please be specific. Be sure to include how much money you think you are saving by the assinine things you're about to say like...cut the Department of Education. Also be sure to realize that Social Security and medicare have their own revenue streams and for most of their existence have run surpluses, many years in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Good luck righties. Let's see you balance the budget by cutting.

Wanna list, huh?

Well, even though I can't speak for the so-called "conservatives" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) my particular list has always included:

Cutting military spending by closing all the bases in places like Japan, Germany, England and Korea (for starters), where the wars have been over for decades.

Abolish the Departments of Education, Commerce, Labor, Energy, Fatherland Security and FEMA.


Privatize and/or devolve to the states the Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Interior, HHS and HUD.

Privatize and/or devolve to the states about 95% of the functions of the FAA, FDA, NOAA, EPA, OSHA, BLM, and most of the rest of the federal Alphabet Soup Mob.

End the idiotic "war" on (some) drugs and consolidate the FBI, ATF, DEA & U.S. Marshals into one agency.

End Medicare/Medicaid altogether.

Phase out Social Security, by selling off federal lands to pay the benefits to current recipients.


But it doesn't matter what the list entails, because there'll always be a statist jackwad to come running in to save his favored program, complete with the obligatory parade of "victims" of the cuts, to defend their program as "indispensable".

So, when do we get on with the revolt?

 

[LiberalNut]

5 years ago is as good as it will ever be again in the foreseeable future.

You don't know that. Ad I said, we could let in a wave of immigration and fix the worker to recipient ratio almost instantly.

That would have beat the hell outta spending the revenues

On what planet? In that case, more debt would have had to have been issued to the public to cover general fund outlays. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.

It doesn't exist.

YES IT DOES. I showed you the trutees report. Did you read it?

NO revenues exist to cover the liabilities of the baby boom gen SS liabilities.

You mean revenues from 10 years from now aren't in the treasury yet? Damn, you're a fucking genius!

SS is already costing more than it takes in 9 years ahead of schedule thanks to the recession.

And lo and behold, the system hasn't collapsed! Maybe because current revenue isn't what pays for current outlays. What do you think? The system has been through these periods before, most notably in the 70s. It continued to pay outlays every year though. Go figure.

 

[LiberalNut]

Wanna list, huh?

No, I want a budget proposal, complete with NUMBERS. What i did not want was the standard libertarian fantasy spew.

That's all I keep getting though.

 

[Oddball]

What do I look like...An accountant?

Fact is that Socialist Insecurity and Medicare/Medicaid comprise no less that 1/2 of the total federal non-discretionary outlays, do junking and phasing out of those money pits pretty much ends up solving the budgetary problems.

Try another approach, sock-o.