Dem Budget: 2 TRILLION in NEW TAX HIKES, Deep Cuts at Pentagon

[AVG-JOE]

That doesn't make sense - the payments are being paid from the trust fund - it's accounting methods and the simple fact that FICA taxes are 'spent' on T-bills as soon as we pay them. We owe that money to ourselves because we borrowed it from us.

Social Security is NOT a drain on the general fund.

You put the "suck" in "sucker." All payments to Social Security come out of the general fund. There is no money in the trust fund and there never has been. If we "owe it to ourselves," then we also have to pay ourselves back. Where does the money for that come from? By taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other? You're still left with a net sum of zero.

Anyone who believes the SS trust fund has anything real in it is simply a moron.

Do you understand the difference between borrowing and the obligation to repay those loans versus simple spending?

Note that I'm not saying that Social Security doesn't need legislative attention - information from the link below screams that it does.

The link also states that the assets of The SSA Retirement Trust Fund were $24,290,000,000 at the end of 2010.

Even your average republican would most likely admit that $2.4 trillion is real money - too bad it's all in T-Bills.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is not Trust Fund.

The government has already spent that money and stuffed it with IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers. In addition, the "trust fund" is underfunded (along with Medicare) by over $30T on a net present value basis. That means that future benefits will be paid by significantly increasing payroll taxes on future workers.

It's a PONZI SCHEME.

So Social Security should never have invested its money in the world's safest bonds?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That doesn't make sense - the payments are being paid from the trust fund - it's accounting methods and the simple fact that FICA taxes are 'spent' on T-bills as soon as we pay them. We owe that money to ourselves because we borrowed it from us.

Social Security is NOT a drain on the general fund.

You put the "suck" in "sucker." All payments to Social Security come out of the general fund. There is no money in the trust fund and there never has been. If we "owe it to ourselves," then we also have to pay ourselves back. Where does the money for that come from? By taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other? You're still left with a net sum of zero.

Anyone who believes the SS trust fund has anything real in it is simply a moron.

Do you understand the difference between borrowing and the obligation to repay those loans versus simple spending?

Note that I'm not saying that Social Security doesn't need legislative attention - information from the link below screams that it does.

The link also states that the assets of The SSA Retirement Trust Fund were $24,290,000,000 at the end of 2010.

Even your average republican would most likely admit that $2.4 trillion is real money - too bad it's all in T-Bills.

Trustees Report Summary

So Social Security has made a terrible mistake by investing its cash in U.S. treasuries? So every other individual, bank, insurance company, country, private pension fund, Buffy and Jody with their US Savings Bonds,

everyone's made a mistake by loaning money to the US Government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is not Trust Fund.

The government has already spent that money and stuffed it with IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers. In addition, the "trust fund" is underfunded (along with Medicare) by over $30T on a net present value basis. That means that future benefits will be paid by significantly increasing payroll taxes on future workers.

It's a PONZI SCHEME.

I know that. that's why I told AVE-JOE we could pay benefits out of the fund. He and the rest of the Dims believe there's money in it. If that's the case, then let them operate on that delusion. The results should be spectacularly entertaining.

So if you put money in a money market account, and the money market buys T-bills/bonds/notes with it,

you no longer have any money????

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is not Trust Fund.

The government has already spent that money and stuffed it with IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers. In addition, the "trust fund" is underfunded (along with Medicare) by over $30T on a net present value basis. That means that future benefits will be paid by significantly increasing payroll taxes on future workers.

It's a PONZI SCHEME.

That's not social security's fault. The US government borrows from the trust fund, not to mention everywhere else,

because the taxpayer isn't being asked to pay as you go. So yes, the taxpayer eventually has to pay Social Security back -

unless you believe the US government has no obligation to make good on its obligations.

 

[xsited1]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

The part where you said taxes are high enough and have been for years. That doesn't make sense since taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years.

So increasing taxes will improve the economy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me simplify it. If I buy a savings bond (T-bill) and I cash it in when it matures, am I part of the spending problem because I loaned the U.S. money and I want to be repaid according to the terms of the contract?

I'll even give you the answer: No.

When the US Treasury sends a check to repay a loan made to the US by The Bank Of China, is THAT considered 'spending' or is it considered a 'deficit reduction' payment?

Every Social Security check that Treasury sends out to your sweet old granny and mine from the general fund is a partial repayment of a loan made by the SSA Trust fund, not deficit spending.

Holy fuck... maybe this IS rocket science for some...

Pretend SSA has $2 trillion worth of good T-Notes in the "lock box".
Now they have to cash in $100 billion to pay next month's benefits.
Where does the $100 billion come from?
Pretend SSA doesn't have anything in the "lock box".
Now they need $100 billion to pay next month's benefits.
Where does the $100 billion come from?

 

[AVG-JOE]

You put the "suck" in "sucker." All payments to Social Security come out of the general fund. There is no money in the trust fund and there never has been. If we "owe it to ourselves," then we also have to pay ourselves back. Where does the money for that come from? By taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other? You're still left with a net sum of zero.

Anyone who believes the SS trust fund has anything real in it is simply a moron.

Do you understand the difference between borrowing and the obligation to repay those loans versus simple spending?

Note that I'm not saying that Social Security doesn't need legislative attention - information from the link below screams that it does.

The link also states that the assets of The SSA Retirement Trust Fund were $24,290,000,000 at the end of 2010.

Even your average republican would most likely admit that $2.4 trillion is real money - too bad it's all in T-Bills.

Trustees Report Summary

So Social Security has made a terrible mistake by investing its cash in U.S. treasuries? So every other individual, bank, insurance company, country, private pension fund, Buffy and Jody with their US Savings Bonds,

everyone's made a mistake by loaning money to the US Government?

Time will tell, young Jedi.

The other side of the question relates to the wisdom of putting all of ones retirement nest eggs into one and only one basket. Personally, I'd like to see We, The People investing part of our retirement fund in the stock of blue-chip, dividend paying American Companies - perhaps hire a couple of those smart-ass banksters to run the pool and pay them a percentage of the growth.

 

[xsited1]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

The part where you said taxes are high enough and have been for years. That doesn't make sense since taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years.

It's always sad to see posts like this with some many Thank You's. Why? Because it's wrong. Here's the story:

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

Almost at the end of the story you read the following:

The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.

In other words, the numbers backing this story do not even count the second-largest federal tax unless you're extremely wealthy. Now let's look at the numbers from the source:

BEA Data

So Federal, state and local governments are actually collecting 17.2 percent of national income. If that still seems far too low, that’s because it is. BEA’s analysis does not include state sales taxes, either. That creates a discrepancy of about $400 billion between BEA’s reported amount in state tax revenues (for 2008, it was a bit over $300 billion) and the amount reported by the U.S. Census. If you use the comprehensive and larger number for state revenues, taxes consume closer to 21 percent of personal income, although that number would probably be higher if you included other taxes that consumers and wage-earners pay, such as corporate taxes.

The other important point: much of today’s government spending is being paid for by future tax increases (i.e., borrowing).

In other words, in addition to collecting about a quarter of GDP in taxes, governments in the US at all levels tacked on another 10.7% of GDP in future costs. Add that up and governments in the US spent over a third of national income in 2009. A far cry from the 9.2% that the USA Today article inadvertently implies.

Here's a suggestion: Don't be stupid. Look at the data before repeating a talking point.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Then let Social Security make its payments from the so-called "trust fund" and refrain from using any revenues from the general fund.

That doesn't make sense - the payments are being paid from the trust fund - it's accounting methods and the simple fact that FICA taxes are 'spent' on T-bills as soon as we pay them. We owe that money to ourselves because we borrowed it from us.

Social Security is NOT a drain on the general fund.

This is very misleading. Social Security has reached a cash deficit phase.

The Congressional Budget Office created a stir when it reported last week that Social Security paid out $37 billion more than it took in last year. The CBO projected that Social Security would run perpetual cash deficits from this point on, rising from $45 billion this year to $118 billion in 2021.

Benefits need to be restricted or revenues increased. People are living longer and the Baby Boomers are graying.

Agreed. Social Security is in trouble and needs legislative attention - I have never stated otherwise. My bringing it up in this thread was to point out that SS payments from the general fund are repaying the loans made by the SS Trust Fund to the general fund over the years and Social Security is separate from current deficit spending.

Social Security is a creditor to the general fund, not a drain on it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Let me simplify it. If I buy a savings bond (T-bill) and I cash it in when it matures, am I part of the spending problem because I loaned the U.S. money and I want to be repaid according to the terms of the contract?

I'll even give you the answer: No.

When the US Treasury sends a check to repay a loan made to the US by The Bank Of China, is THAT considered 'spending' or is it considered a 'deficit reduction' payment?

Every Social Security check that Treasury sends out to your sweet old granny and mine from the general fund is a partial repayment of a loan made by the SSA Trust fund, not deficit spending.

Holy fuck... maybe this IS rocket science for some...

Pretend SSA has $2 trillion worth of good T-Notes in the "lock box".
Now they have to cash in $100 billion to pay next month's benefits.
Where does the $100 billion come from?
Pretend SSA doesn't have anything in the "lock box".
Now they need $100 billion to pay next month's benefits.
Where does the $100 billion come from?

Pretending is for little girls and star-crossed lovers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciS5GikZ5Jo]YouTube - ‪Pretend Nat King Cole‬‏[/ame]

Social Security is a contract with funding and, such as it is, an investment strategy. Does the program need a tweak or two? Definitely! But that doesn't negate the contract, which will force the program to reduce benefits before it deficit spends.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

Socialist bastard!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

Taxes have not been sufficient to cover spending for thirty years. That is why we ran up $14 trillion in debt

How big an idiot do you have to be to cut taxes without cutting spending first?

Let's return to tax rates to where they were ten years ago. Once the debt is paid off, the wealthy can have their tax cuts back

It is the spending, period.

 

[martybegan]

There is not Trust Fund.

The government has already spent that money and stuffed it with IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers. In addition, the "trust fund" is underfunded (along with Medicare) by over $30T on a net present value basis. That means that future benefits will be paid by significantly increasing payroll taxes on future workers.

It's a PONZI SCHEME.

That's not social security's fault. The US government borrows from the trust fund, not to mention everywhere else,

because the taxpayer isn't being asked to pay as you go. So yes, the taxpayer eventually has to pay Social Security back -

unless you believe the US government has no obligation to make good on its obligations.

You don't get it. The US didn't borrow from the trust fund, the trust fund WAS the borrowing.

SS ran a surplus every year X dollars. it used that to buy X dollars in treasuries. Those $$ given to the government FOR the treasuries were then used as general money for the budget.

Now that SS is running in the red, there is no more $$ going into treasuries, and now SS has to take money back from its prinicpal its been adding all this time.

Get it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me simplify it. If I buy a savings bond (T-bill) and I cash it in when it matures, am I part of the spending problem because I loaned the U.S. money and I want to be repaid according to the terms of the contract?

I'll even give you the answer: No.

When the US Treasury sends a check to repay a loan made to the US by The Bank Of China, is THAT considered 'spending' or is it considered a 'deficit reduction' payment?

Every Social Security check that Treasury sends out to your sweet old granny and mine from the general fund is a partial repayment of a loan made by the SSA Trust fund, not deficit spending.

Holy fuck... maybe this IS rocket science for some...

Pretend SSA has $2 trillion worth of good T-Notes in the "lock box".
Now they have to cash in $100 billion to pay next month's benefits.
Where does the $100 billion come from?
Pretend SSA doesn't have anything in the "lock box".
Now they need $100 billion to pay next month's benefits.
Where does the $100 billion come from?

Pretending is for little girls and star-crossed lovers.

Plus, it ruins your claim.

 

[Antiderivative]

Senate Democrats have drafted a sweeping debt-reduction plan that would slice $4 trillion from projected borrowing over the next decade without touching the expensive health and retirement programs targeted by President Obama

I don't see a problem. It sounds like a step in the right direction. There is nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism and prioritizing your taxes and spending cuts.

Our safety nets need to be addressed, especially Medicare. It will turn into even a bigger monster. However, the last party I trust to fix Medicare is the GOP. The last time they touched Medicare, they gave us Medicare Part D, the trillion dollar unfunded bill which was a handout to Big Pharma.

I like Johnson's ideas of giving back to the states and urging Republicans to go after Medicare Part D, like they do Obamacare.

 

[Toro]

There is not Trust Fund.

The government has already spent that money and stuffed it with IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers. In addition, the "trust fund" is underfunded (along with Medicare) by over $30T on a net present value basis. That means that future benefits will be paid by significantly increasing payroll taxes on future workers.

It's a PONZI SCHEME.

That's not social security's fault. The US government borrows from the trust fund, not to mention everywhere else,

because the taxpayer isn't being asked to pay as you go. So yes, the taxpayer eventually has to pay Social Security back -

unless you believe the US government has no obligation to make good on its obligations.

You don't get it. The US didn't borrow from the trust fund, the trust fund WAS the borrowing.

SS ran a surplus every year X dollars. it used that to buy X dollars in treasuries. Those $$ given to the government FOR the treasuries were then used as general money for the budget.

Now that SS is running in the red, there is no more $$ going into treasuries, and now SS has to take money back from its prinicpal its been adding all this time.

Get it?

That's not really true. SS doesn't actually buy Treasury bonds. They credit and debit the accounts as if they were buying and selling real Treasury bonds. But they are not. A lot of people are confused by this. Because its confusing. I'll get around to creating a thread about how this all works when I'm not feeling so lazy.

 

[EriktheRed]

Our safety nets need to be addressed, especially Medicare. It will turn into even a bigger monster. However, the last party I trust to fix Medicare is the GOP. The last time they touched Medicare, they gave us Medicare Part D, the trillion dollar unfunded bill which was a handout to Big Pharma.

I like Johnson's ideas of giving back to the states and urging Republicans to go after Medicare Part D, like they do Obamacare.

The GOP shouldn't be trusted with ANY part of the social safety net because in the end they have shown nothing but contempt for its very existence.

 

[bripat9643]

There is not Trust Fund.

The government has already spent that money and stuffed it with IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers. In addition, the "trust fund" is underfunded (along with Medicare) by over $30T on a net present value basis. That means that future benefits will be paid by significantly increasing payroll taxes on future workers.

It's a PONZI SCHEME.

So Social Security should never have invested its money in the world's safest bonds?

Why don't you "invest" by writing an I.O.U to pay yourself for $100,000 10 years from now, and then tell us how well that pays off.

 

[bripat9643]

So Social Security has made a terrible mistake by investing its cash in U.S. treasuries? So every other individual, bank, insurance company, country, private pension fund, Buffy and Jody with their US Savings Bonds,

everyone's made a mistake by loaning money to the US Government?

Don't you numskulls understand that when the government loans money to itself that the net result is a big fat ZERO?

Write an I.O.U to yourself, then try to go spend the money you received.

Tell us how it works out.

The fact that people like you can vote is proof that democracy is doomed to implode.