Social Security does not add to the deficit

[healthmyths]

Hard to tell for sure, but it looks like he might be confused over the difference between what comes in and what goes out. I don't usually read his posts because he seems to be confused about damn near everything but his confusion doesn't stop him for yammering about it.



You have a good point. All any of us can do is read and try to figure out whose version to trust.

The right won't trust the left and the left won't trust the right.

And so it goes.

CONFUSION????
IDIOT... The graph clearly stated "SOCIAL SECURITY" $831 billion!
LIE!
It is a combination of Medicare AND SS and the total for 2011 was $818 billion ToTal!

Where in the f...k is the confusion in that???
Please point it out!!!

In fact please go to this site:Trustees Report Summary

WHAT DO the TRUSTEES SAY dumb f...K???

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983,and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period.


NOW dumb f...ks... what is their solution???

Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits

NOW dumb f...ks!!!

WHERE does the US government GET the money to pay SS when the redeem the TRUST FUND ASSETS??

"After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

DO YOU dummies understand that??? THERE IS MORE money going out then coming in so the TRUSTEES are redeeming assets to make up the difference!

That doesn't mean Social Security isn't paying its own way.

DID YOU NOT go to this site and READ what the trustees WROTE???
Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits

WHERE does the US TREASURY go if there IS LESS MONEY coming in then going out???
THEY BORROW IT!!! $16 trillion NoW!

So if the Trustees and their actuaries ARE PAYING OUT MORE then the TAX REVENUE coming in... they cash their assets!
When they cash their assets.. They ask the Treasury to pay up!
The Treasury says..."we don't have enough revenue... WE HAVE TO BORROW!

So again... if you go to the bank and you say I need a loan to pay out my expenses they will say you don't have enough income... cash some of your savings!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???? There is NOT enough revenue coming in so the Trustees are cashing in their assets!
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Disability Insurance (DI Hospital Insurance (HI)
Payroll taxes $482.4 $81.9 $195.6
They paid $596.2 $128.9 $252.9 $288.5 SMI...
out in benefits:

So which number is bigger???? top row which is the INCOME from tAXES
Or the bottom row which is WHAT THEY PAID OUT?????


Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund comprises two separate accounts: Part B, which pays for physician and outpatient services, and Part D,

 

[Darkwind]

Oh, good. That means when the debt ceiling doesn't go up, Social Security will be able to pay their obligations.

One less talking point for the debt ceiling debate.....thanks.....

 

[healthmyths]

Oh, good. That means when the debt ceiling doesn't go up, Social Security will be able to pay their obligations.

One less talking point for the debt ceiling debate.....thanks.....

Simple talk ok?
A) If Debt ceiling NOT raised,
B) means US Treasury CAN'T borrow.
C) If Treasury can't borrow,
D) means that can't pay NOTES held by SS .
E) when SS needs cash to make payments to retired Treasury has no cash to pay.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wiseacre is a supreme idiot. Really...

Didn't you say recently that the US Supporting Al Qaida in the Middle East didn't bother you one bit?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Number of Workers paying Social Security Payments for One Person in 1940: 42

Number of Workers paying Social Security Payments for One Person in 2011: 1.75

Social Security Benefits Less Than What Workers Put In | TIME.com

But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't know. Maybe it's because your candidates have made sure Social security has absolutely zero money in the coffers since you guys started raiding it decades ago and we can do math.

It hasn't been 'raided'. It's been invested by loaning it out for the purpose of generating interest income.

The you have been duped.

It was 'invested' into the general fund through intra agency bonds and then promptly spent on whatever the politicians wanted to spend it on. Whether that is bridges to nowhere or your kids school it does not matter. The 'raid' term still stands as there is no difference in the outcome. The reality is that SS is no longer taking in what it needs to pay out. There is no escaping that no matter what accounting tricks you use to hide the fact we need to borrow to pay for it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Did you guys know that you have "no contractual right" to social security payments? F*ckin' Supreme Court said so!:
Flemming v. Nestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.

So the Gubmint says that if you pay into SS now they'll give you back an X amount when you retire. But it seems it's not a contract and the US Gubmint is under no obligation to even pay you that money back. Supreme Court said so!

See, I could tell you that the Banksters that run this country set it up that way back in 1933 when they wrote the Social Security Legislation but you would call me a "Conspiracy Theorist" wouldn't you?

 

[SniperFire]

/thread

 

[ogibillm]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

If I'm not mistaken they have had to borrow to cover the SS short fall for last 3-4 years. Maobama payroll tax cut played a huge roll in that. Ya cut funding to a program that was just barely sustaining itself without reducing expenditures you have to cover the difference and pay interest on the borrowed money.

by law if there is a short fall social security admin can't pay any benefits.

what has happened in recent years is that social security is collecting less in taxes than it pays out, but it is making that difference up with the interest earned on the treasury bonds it owns

 

[OKTexas]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

If I'm not mistaken they have had to borrow to cover the SS short fall for last 3-4 years. Maobama payroll tax cut played a huge roll in that. Ya cut funding to a program that was just barely sustaining itself without reducing expenditures you have to cover the difference and pay interest on the borrowed money.

by law if there is a short fall social security admin can't pay any benefits.

what has happened in recent years is that social security is collecting less in taxes than it pays out, but it is making that difference up with the interest earned on the treasury bonds it owns

Yep and the government is having to borrow 40 cents of every dollar they use to pay that interest, can you say deficit spending? Technically SS has assets in the form of bonds but the have zero cash on hand except for the Maobama reduced payroll tax. That leaves SS to cash in bonds to make up the difference, and uncle sam has to borrow from somewhere else to pay the bonds. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul which leaves the taxpayers to pay all the interest involved with all the borrowing.

 

[TNHarley]

It should. It is considered an "entitlement" now.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

They dont just borrow the difference............They immediately use those funds for other purposes and use the proceeds from selling bonds to cover disbursements.....And pay interest on all the bonds.........

 

[Lakhota]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

NO, it doesn't. Social Security currently has a $2.7 trillion surplus. Any "borrowing" comes out of that surplus. Social Security doesn't cost the government one penny. Not one penny - other than the interest the government pays on the bonds held by Social Security - just like China and other holders of U.S. debt.

Social Security is the largest holder of U.S. debt - which is why NaziCons want to fuck it over.

 

[Darkwind]

Fact-checkers Sputter And Flop Attempting To Explain How Social Security Works, Affects Deficit

Social Security, by law, does not add to the deficit. It is not a driver of long-term debt. We’ve been over this. The reason no one can get it right is because here in this season of the fiscal cliff, no one is getting anything right. It’s a full-on headless chicken panic. Everyone needs to calm down, about a lot of things, but especially about Social Security, which does not even have to come up during the “fiscal cliff talks” because it’s totally irrelevant to the situation and will only complicate everything needlessly.

So, why do Rs want to take (previously earned and therefore entitled to) money away from the elderly?

Good. So, when the debt ceiling debate comes up again, you are going to write to Obama and tell him to stop threatening old people with no SSAN checks because he doesn't have to borrow money for Social Security.

Right?

 

[Lakhota]

Fact-checkers Sputter And Flop Attempting To Explain How Social Security Works, Affects Deficit

Social Security, by law, does not add to the deficit. It is not a driver of long-term debt. We’ve been over this. The reason no one can get it right is because here in this season of the fiscal cliff, no one is getting anything right. It’s a full-on headless chicken panic. Everyone needs to calm down, about a lot of things, but especially about Social Security, which does not even have to come up during the “fiscal cliff talks” because it’s totally irrelevant to the situation and will only complicate everything needlessly.

So, why do Rs want to take (previously earned and therefore entitled to) money away from the elderly?

Good. So, when the debt ceiling debate comes up again, you are going to write to Obama and tell him to stop threatening old people with no SSAN checks because he doesn't have to borrow money for Social Security.

Right?

You mean because of NaziCons causing another government shutdown?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wiseacre is a supreme idiot. Really...

Why don't you stop running your mouth and offer an explanation as to why what I said is wrong. I tried to dumb it down for you.

Because stupid ass unsupported assertions is all Lakoduh is good for.

Truth is, though, these debts that Congress made with SSA are in the form of bonds are they not?

So for SSA to sell said bonds no more means that they are out of money than if you or I sold our bonds to bring in money, right?

So, to compare to private use of bonds and other securities, SSA is no more out of cash than you or I would be in retirement, drawing on bonds sold to SSA by Congress as Congress 'invested' the surpluss from the SSA during the fat years, like evry other thing the corrupt fucking Democrats have done in DC when we had surplusses that included the take in from SSA, etc.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

NO, it doesn't. Social Security currently has a $2.7 trillion surplus. Any "borrowing" comes out of that surplus. Social Security doesn't cost the government one penny. Not one penny - other than the interest the government pays on the bonds held by Social Security - just like China and other holders of U.S. debt.

Social Security is the largest holder of U.S. debt - which is why NaziCons want to fuck it over.

Not only the GOP, dude, but the Dems do too. They were all happy to raid it with I.O.U.s when it brought in a surplus, but now that it is drawing on those I.O.U.s, they are talking about it having a shortfall, shich is bullshit.

They should never have traded the surplus intake for US bonds over at the SSA. Congress is no better than a union 'borrowing' from its pension fund.

 

[Lakhota]

Trust Fund FAQs

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know. Maybe it's because your candidates have made sure Social security has absolutely zero money in the coffers since you guys started raiding it decades ago and we can do math.

It hasn't been 'raided'. It's been invested by loaning it out for the purpose of generating interest income.

Umm, yeah, Congress is 'loaning' the surplus to itself, kind of like the mob does with pension funds, but the mob goes to jail for that sort of thing, dont they?

 

[auditor0007]

I don't know. Maybe it's because your candidates have made sure Social security has absolutely zero money in the coffers since you guys started raiding it decades ago and we can do math.

You're really going to go there? Republicans are just as guilty on this one. They all did it, and guess what? Stupid voters allowed it to happen. We only have ourselves to blame for this, plain and simple. Quit trying to make it a political issue.