Debt-limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments

[Steelplate]

WASHINGTON — Social Security payments to millions of retirees and people with disabilities could be threatened if President Obama and Congress can't agree to increase the government's debt limit by Aug. 2, a new analysis shows.

Although the Treasury Department likely could avoid delaying Social Security checks, the analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center points up the depth of the cuts that would be needed if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling isn't raised.

It shows that in August, the government could not afford to meet 44% of its obligations. Since the $134 billion deficit for that month couldn't be covered with more borrowing, programs would have to be cut.

If Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to defense contractors and interest payments on Treasury bonds were exempt, that would be all the government could afford for the month. No money for troops or veterans. No tax refunds. No food stamps or welfare. No federal salaries or benefits.

Want to protect the social safety net? That would be possible — but only if Treasury stopped paying defense contractors, jeopardizing national security. Plus virtually every federal agency and employee.

"We should be honest with ourselves what this would be like, and the answer is it would be chaotic," said Jay Powell, a former top Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration. "There is no way to avoid really serious pain."

The Bipartisan Policy Center studied Treasury Department receipts and spending for August 2009 and 2010 and found that the government likely would not have enough revenue to make the full $23 billion payment to Social Security recipients due Aug. 3. That's the first Wednesday of the month, when a majority of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income checks go out.

Things wouldn't improve much as the days pass. The first major interest payment to creditors would be due Aug. 15 — $29 billion, more than the $22 billion due to arrive in revenue.

On that day, Treasury would have to roll over nearly $500 billion in maturing debt — necessitating an auction which, by that time, might have fewer takers than usual. If demand declines, interest rates would rise.

As the center foresees it, the picture would get worse: layoffs and lawsuits. Global market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access.
The effect on the country, said former Republican senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, would be "irretrievable."

Debt-limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments - USATODAY.com

OMG--the sky is falling-. So the Federal Government is going to raise their credit card limit--(without any spending cuts) and this bill has our kids and unborn grandkids names written all over it for repayment. GET A FREAKIN BACKBONE.

There are 18,000 babyboomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 YEARS. Resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink right now. This equates to $534,000.00 PER HOUSEHOLD in America owed to the Federal Government.

You Draw a line right now--or social security/medicare will no longer exist. Do NOT be dupped into this FEAR game that democrats and Barack Obama continually launch at you.

We as AMERICANS are better than this. I refuse to pass or kick the can down to my kids and grandkids. And if you can't stand up and do the same--you're not an American.

View attachment 13934

14.3 trillion in red ink now--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--as baby boomers are now entering social security/medicare. DEMOCRATS and BARACK OBAMA HAVE NO PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.--except to SCARE you into voting for these missing in action--economic morons.

Who said "without any spending cuts"? Oh... that's right... YOU.

 

[Toro]

House Republicans have refused to raise the debt limit without concessions from Senate Democrats. Whether voters hold the Republicans or Democrats responsible for any resulting financial crisis depends on whether there is a crisis and how serious it is. If the crisis is serious enough to cause a major sell off in stocks and bonds and triggers another recession you can bet voters will hold Republicans responsible for a failed risky plan to bring about deficit reduction.

To help the situation we need to cut expensis and raise revenue

Well that's pretty simple; just cut taxes and that will raise revenues.

That's pretty simple, alright.

 

[Toro]

OMG--the sky is falling-. So the Federal Government is going to raise their credit card limit--(without any spending cuts) and this bill has our kids and unborn grandkids names written all over it for repayment. GET A FREAKIN BACKBONE.

There are 18,000 babyboomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 YEARS. Resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink right now. This equates to $534,000.00 PER HOUSEHOLD in America owed to the Federal Government.

You Draw a line right now--or social security/medicare will no longer exist. Do NOT be dupped into this FEAR game that democrats and Barack Obama continually launch at you.

We as AMERICANS are better than this. I refuse to pass or kick the can down to my kids and grandkids. And if you can't stand up and do the same--you're not an American.

View attachment 13934

14.3 trillion in red ink now--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--as baby boomers are now entering social security/medicare. DEMOCRATS and BARACK OBAMA HAVE NO PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.--except to SCARE you into voting for these missing in action--economic morons.

Our obligations were made by Congress. Yes, passing the debt limit is equivalent to increasing the credit limit in order pay our obligations. To do otherwise would destroy our credit and faith in the government and that's not a Fear Game, that's a fact.

What you are doing is nothing more than fear mongering flopper. Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't shut off revenue. IT does mean that finally government has to take a hard look at what it does. Raising the debt ceiling simply allows them to continue business as usual and put us farther in debt. You are a fucking fool if you think there will be real change to how government spends money if the debt ceiling is raised.

The deficit is roughly 10% of GDP. This MUST be resolved, but in time. Not raising the debt ceiling means that we start contracting total spending at a rate that is twice that of the worst rate of economic contraction incurred during the depths of the financial crisis. That is not fear mongering. That is a mathematical fact.

We HAVE to solve the deficit. The right way to do it is to set a plan for deficit reduction. And that means cutting spending. But to force deficit reduction through the debt ceiling by contracting GDP 10% when unemployment is 9% is insane.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Our obligations were made by Congress. Yes, passing the debt limit is equivalent to increasing the credit limit in order pay our obligations. To do otherwise would destroy our credit and faith in the government and that's not a Fear Game, that's a fact.

What you are doing is nothing more than fear mongering flopper. Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't shut off revenue. IT does mean that finally government has to take a hard look at what it does. Raising the debt ceiling simply allows them to continue business as usual and put us farther in debt. You are a fucking fool if you think there will be real change to how government spends money if the debt ceiling is raised.

The deficit is roughly 10% of GDP. This MUST be resolved, but in time. Not raising the debt ceiling means that we start contracting total spending at a rate that is twice that of the worst rate of economic contraction incurred during the depths of the financial crisis. That is not fear mongering. That is a mathematical fact.

We HAVE to solve the deficit. The right way to do it is to set a plan for deficit reduction. And that means cutting spending. But to force deficit reduction through the debt ceiling by contracting GDP 10% when unemployment is 9% is insane.

I'm not sure Grover Norquist is insane, what's clear is he supports a new America, one ruled by the very wealthy who are supported by the labor of the vast majority of Americans, taxed but not represented. Forcing default seem to be exactly what Norquist has set his sights upon, and is now within his reach; as the puppet master it is he who controls the votes of each Republican Member of the House of Representatives and most of the Senate Republicans.

No one knows the ultimate consequences of default, though the risks are great and the benefits are few and will negatively impact the many. It maybe insane after all.

 

[Flopper]

OMG--the sky is falling-. So the Federal Government is going to raise their credit card limit--(without any spending cuts) and this bill has our kids and unborn grandkids names written all over it for repayment. GET A FREAKIN BACKBONE.

There are 18,000 babyboomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 YEARS. Resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink right now. This equates to $534,000.00 PER HOUSEHOLD in America owed to the Federal Government.

You Draw a line right now--or social security/medicare will no longer exist. Do NOT be dupped into this FEAR game that democrats and Barack Obama continually launch at you.

We as AMERICANS are better than this. I refuse to pass or kick the can down to my kids and grandkids. And if you can't stand up and do the same--you're not an American.

View attachment 13934

14.3 trillion in red ink now--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--as baby boomers are now entering social security/medicare. DEMOCRATS and BARACK OBAMA HAVE NO PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.--except to SCARE you into voting for these missing in action--economic morons.

Our obligations were made by Congress. Yes, passing the debt limit is equivalent to increasing the credit limit in order pay our obligations. To do otherwise would destroy our credit and faith in the government and that's not a Fear Game, that's a fact.

What you are doing is nothing more than fear mongering flopper. Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't shut off revenue. IT does mean that finally government has to take a hard look at what it does. Raising the debt ceiling simply allows them to continue business as usual and put us farther in debt. You are a fucking fool if you think there will be real change to how government spends money if the debt ceiling is raised.

Ok, let's assume we don't raise the debt limit. There is no deal. That means the administration get's to decide where to cut 1.5 trillion/yr, which contracts to default on, which debts to pay, and which programs and departments are eliminated. The impact on the US economy would be be a reduction of 7% of GDP. So what do you think the impact of this would be on the economy and the faith and credit in the US government?

 

[rdean]

The GOP wants to eliminate Social Security anyway. This is all part of their plan. Nothing new here?

except obie noodle is the one who decides who gets what? never forget that.

I'm having a difficult time translating your baby talk. I never learned to speak "Tard". Perhaps you could put the translation in parenthesis?

Like this:

I don't like Obama because he makes too much sense (Oogly boogly oh bomie wamie gitchie gitchie poo!)

 

[mike beev]

I kind of like the idea that per the 14th Ammendment this whole idea of a debt ceiling law is unconstitutional. After all, once you have run up your credit cards do you then get to vote with your wife whether the bills should be paid.

A balanced budget ammendment is one thing; that does not allow the gov't to incurr the debts in the first place. But once Congress passes a budget (uses the credit card) it is implicit that it is authorizing the payments due on the card.

To spend less we could cut the military budget by 40% (Do we really need to spend more on defense that every other country on Earth combined?) and demand that Wall Street pay back the bailout money like Detroit is paying back their bailout money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I kind of like the idea that per the 14th Ammendment this whole idea of a debt ceiling law is unconstitutional. After all, once you have run up your credit cards do you then get to vote with your wife whether the bills should be paid.

A balanced budget ammendment is one thing; that does not allow the gov't to incurr the debts in the first place. But once Congress passes a budget (uses the credit card) it is implicit that it is authorizing the payments due on the card.

To spend less we could cut the military budget by 40% (Do we really need to spend more on defense that every other country on Earth combined?) and demand that Wall Street pay back the bailout money like Detroit is paying back their bailout money.

The bank portion of TARP has been paid back at a profit to the Treasury.
The losses to TARP will be from the mortgage reduction program, the auto bailout portion and the Fannie and Freddie portion.

 

[Nic_Driver]

I kind of like the idea that per the 14th Ammendment this whole idea of a debt ceiling law is unconstitutional. After all, once you have run up your credit cards do you then get to vote with your wife whether the bills should be paid.

A balanced budget ammendment is one thing; that does not allow the gov't to incurr the debts in the first place. But once Congress passes a budget (uses the credit card) it is implicit that it is authorizing the payments due on the card.

To spend less we could cut the military budget by 40% (Do we really need to spend more on defense that every other country on Earth combined?) and demand that Wall Street pay back the bailout money like Detroit is paying back their bailout money.

Could Obama ignore Congress if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling? Yes, and he should, some experts say | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Grim and Saass point to the 1935 Perry v. U.S Supreme Court ruling, which determined that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment does apply to the national debt. What's more, they observe, according to the majority opinion on the case, no act of Congress can undermine promises of debt payment from the federal government.

"To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," wrote Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who presided over the case.

It's good plan and Obama should not cave to republican economic terrorism this time around.

 

[Steelplate]

I see a lot of talk about a balanced budget amendment... What you have to realize is... it's not going to happen. At least not before the deadline. Attaching a Balanced budget amendment to the debt ceiling is pure Politics from the GOP.

Why? Not only do you have to get the House of Representatives and the Senate to vote for it. But it needs to be put to a vote in every state of the Union and needs to pass in 3/4 of the states.

They know it's not going to happen... it's just campaign fodder for 2012.

 

[Flopper]

I see a lot of talk about a balanced budget amendment... What you have to realize is... it's not going to happen. At least not before the deadline. Attaching a Balanced budget amendment to the debt ceiling is pure Politics from the GOP.

Why? Not only do you have to get the House of Representatives and the Senate to vote for it. But it needs to be put to a vote in every state of the Union and needs to pass in 3/4 of the states.

They know it's not going to happen... it's just campaign fodder for 2012.

This is all campaign fodder for 2012. Tea party Republicans have got to get some decent cuts out of the Democrats to come close to matching their promises. The Dems don't have to do anything, just sit back and watch this Republican deficit reduction plan blowup in their faces. That would mean another recession but this is all about something much more important, votes in 2012.

 

[Susan45]

I see a lot of talk about a balanced budget amendment... What you have to realize is... it's not going to happen. At least not before the deadline. Attaching a Balanced budget amendment to the debt ceiling is pure Politics from the GOP.

Why? Not only do you have to get the House of Representatives and the Senate to vote for it. But it needs to be put to a vote in every state of the Union and needs to pass in 3/4 of the states.

They know it's not going to happen... it's just campaign fodder for 2012.

This is all campaign fodder for 2012. Tea party Republicans have got to get some decent cuts out of the Democrats to come close to matching their promises. The Dems don't have to do anything, just sit back and watch this Republican deficit reduction plan blowup in their faces. That would mean another recession but this is all about something much more important, votes in 2012.

Hi Flopper, right you are. I really think that Schumer was right when he said that the GOP was possible holding back so they could get Obama. I think there have been tons of people that have been thinking the same thing but nobody wanted to be first to say it.

This is all about votes. Let's pray they don't succeed in bringing down the government.

 

[Political Junky]

For all those who have an adjustable mortgage, the interest will go way up.

 

[Steelplate]

I see a lot of talk about a balanced budget amendment... What you have to realize is... it's not going to happen. At least not before the deadline. Attaching a Balanced budget amendment to the debt ceiling is pure Politics from the GOP.

Why? Not only do you have to get the House of Representatives and the Senate to vote for it. But it needs to be put to a vote in every state of the Union and needs to pass in 3/4 of the states.

They know it's not going to happen... it's just campaign fodder for 2012.

This is all campaign fodder for 2012. Tea party Republicans have got to get some decent cuts out of the Democrats to come close to matching their promises. The Dems don't have to do anything, just sit back and watch this Republican deficit reduction plan blowup in their faces. That would mean another recession but this is all about something much more important, votes in 2012.

Hi Flopper, right you are. I really think that Schumer was right when he said that the GOP was possible holding back so they could get Obama. I think there have been tons of people that have been thinking the same thing but nobody wanted to be first to say it.

This is all about votes. Let's pray they don't succeed in bringing down the government.

I'll take it a step further... I'm also starting to think that the banking and Corporate industries are holding back with the hiring to do the same thing. I worry that the day has come for the New World Order.... But It's not a governmental thing like many of us expected.

I mean.. I am not necessarily a Conspiracy theorist type... but this stuff is massive.

 

[oreo]

WASHINGTON — Social Security payments to millions of retirees and people with disabilities could be threatened if President Obama and Congress can't agree to increase the government's debt limit by Aug. 2, a new analysis shows.

Although the Treasury Department likely could avoid delaying Social Security checks, the analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center points up the depth of the cuts that would be needed if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling isn't raised.

It shows that in August, the government could not afford to meet 44% of its obligations. Since the $134 billion deficit for that month couldn't be covered with more borrowing, programs would have to be cut.

If Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to defense contractors and interest payments on Treasury bonds were exempt, that would be all the government could afford for the month. No money for troops or veterans. No tax refunds. No food stamps or welfare. No federal salaries or benefits.

Want to protect the social safety net? That would be possible — but only if Treasury stopped paying defense contractors, jeopardizing national security. Plus virtually every federal agency and employee.

"We should be honest with ourselves what this would be like, and the answer is it would be chaotic," said Jay Powell, a former top Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration. "There is no way to avoid really serious pain."

The Bipartisan Policy Center studied Treasury Department receipts and spending for August 2009 and 2010 and found that the government likely would not have enough revenue to make the full $23 billion payment to Social Security recipients due Aug. 3. That's the first Wednesday of the month, when a majority of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income checks go out.

Things wouldn't improve much as the days pass. The first major interest payment to creditors would be due Aug. 15 — $29 billion, more than the $22 billion due to arrive in revenue.

On that day, Treasury would have to roll over nearly $500 billion in maturing debt — necessitating an auction which, by that time, might have fewer takers than usual. If demand declines, interest rates would rise.

As the center foresees it, the picture would get worse: layoffs and lawsuits. Global market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access.
The effect on the country, said former Republican senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, would be "irretrievable."

Debt-limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments - USATODAY.com

Yeah--Yeah--Yeah--but in the bigger picture--there won't be any social security or medicare if the government doesn't get a handle on their spending. The ONLY way to get this crisis---14.3 trillion in red ink now with another train wreck of 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities--(babyboomers entering social security/medicare).

 

[MikeK]

Oh my goodness, what will the indian casinos do if old people aren't able to gamble their social security checks away?

I've never gambled my Social Security checks away. Does someone close to you do that?

 

[MikeK]

Oh my goodness, what will the indian casinos do if old people aren't able to gamble their social security checks away?

If you believe your a comedian, ply your work elsewhere; posting stupid comments on a serious subject suggest foolishness worthy only of an insipid clown.

Sorry, I wasn't aware Social Security had become a "serious subject", considering its been headed down this path of bankrupcy for decades and no one has done anything to fix it.

It is not Social Security which has headed down the path of bankruptcy. Social Security is and has been a highly successful program. The problem is the Congress has been using the solvent Social Security fund for other things and now that the Bush Administration's deliberate effort to bankrupt the Treasury for the purpose of disempowering the middle class has succeeded, the Social Security fund has been drained through no fault of its own.

If the Congress had not been dipping into the Social Security cookie jar the fund would, without any adjustments to the program, continue to function flawlessly until 2037.

 

[MikeK]

My gooness, they should have saved ! That way there useless SSI benefits not coming in would not hurt so bad.

Social Security is a form of saving. An automatic percentage of your paycheck is placed into an account for you. The present situation with Social Security is analogous to your having saved money in a bank account and the bank is telling you that you can't withdraw because it doesn't have your money.

The Social Security fund was very solvent. The problem is the Congress used the money for other things.

 

[Political Junky]

Sorry, I wasn't aware Social Security had become a "serious subject", considering its been headed down this path of bankrupcy for decades and no one has done anything to fix it.

No, that's what the right wing keeps spreading. They've wanted to get rid of Social Security since it came into existence.
Social Security has a trust fund of several $Trillion.

 

[Political Junky]

Sorry, I wasn't aware Social Security had become a "serious subject", considering its been headed down this path of bankrupcy for decades and no one has done anything to fix it.

No, that's what the right wing keeps spreading. They've wanted to get rid of Social Security since it came into existence.
Social Security has a trust fund of several $Trillion.

Wall Street wants its hands on those $Trillions, bad.