US budget deficit totals $76.9 billion in July

[Care4all]

That WAS however, how Clinton and Gingrich "balanced" their budget. By counting the SSec MASSIVE surpluses for those years as THEIR income. Not trust fund investment.

A fact that has been pointed out to Clintonistas ad nauseum and yet they just pretend they don't know about this and continue to gloat about their glory years when Clinton left Bush a surplus to be squandered away.

nope, we know all about the SS surpluses used in the budget to balance the budget, including under Clinton.... And clinton did NOT use all of the SS surpluses for what federal income taxes should have paid for in his budget.... he had SS money left over, even AFTER some was used to pay for their spending, and with those funds he spent them on buying back loans we owed to other Nations that we borrowed money from..... is my understanding of it....?

 

[flacaltenn]

But they DON"T only go for their future benefit!!! How do you think they get to project a deficit of only $890 billion when they are already in debt over $1.1+ trillion??? That extra $3 to $4 hundred billion is coming from payroll taxes!

Not any more. SocSec hasn't had a surplus to steal in over 7 years. It's not possible to show lower deficits by stealing the "overpayments" from the working poor anymore.

That WAS however, how Clinton and Gingrich "balanced" their budget. By counting the SSec MASSIVE surpluses for those years as THEIR income. Not trust fund investment.

I had thought so too, that there were no more SS Surpluses but I just checked and there are still surpluses of of Social Security and the federal Budget is still borrowing it, look at 2017!!!

View attachment 210948

Shoot! Some of my screen shot was cut off! But it still shows the important parts, in 2017 there was a $44.1 BILLION dollar surplus!!!

here's the link with the full charts....

Social Security Ran a $44 Billion Surplus in 2017 -- So, Why Is the Program in Trouble?

This is all of the PHONY public accounting. Because it includes INTEREST on the "debt". When in reality, the interest on the debt is just another payment from the Treasury on that years budget. There is no "lock box" with Trillions or Billions of $$ in it that can used to reduce Soc Sec shortfalls. ANY cash shortfall is paid thru deficit spending. The fiction is that US Treasury is paying back "interest" on the debt. But unlike REAL BONDS tthat pay YEARLY CASH interest to bond holders --- these are not negotiable, marketable, transferable securities.. It's a book-keeping entry on a sheet of paper. Nothing was ever paid until the year they need to cough up some SSec shortfall money.

And it must be paid out of yearly deficit spending EVERY YEAR now. There's not a PENNY of anything in the Trust Fund that can pay a check to a SS recipient.

So instead of 44Bill surplus that they brag about in your charts for 2017, you need to SUBTRACT the $85Bill "payment" of interest that the Treasury coughed up in 2017 and be REAL SKEPTICAL about them counting the TAXATION of Soc Income as "Trust Fund income". Because the taxation of SS benefits does NOT benefit Soc Sec. It's major fraud if a public company pulled this scam in accounting. The deficit spending REQUIRED in 2017 to fill the SS FICA income shortfall approached $80BIll.

Lemme remind you of what is lurking in the back pages of EVERY YEARLY SSA budget report. The "fine print". Here's the version of 2009 but I know it's in later versions as well. READ IT CAREFULLY....

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Sanders Misleads on Social Security - FactCheck.org

“Social Security adds to the unified deficit, which is the deficit we almost all discuss all the time,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in an email interview. “It does so because we spend a lot more on Social Security benefits than we raise in payroll tax and other related revenue.”
Goldwein told us that Sanders’ statement contains a kernel of truth in that Social Security technically can’t run a debt. “That means that any [yearly] deficits it’s running now can only legally be paid because it was running surpluses in the past,” he says. But the government spent the surplus on other things. It owes Social Security the money, which is held in the form of Treasury securities. In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.
Because current payroll taxes don’t produce enough revenue to pay Social Security benefits, the program is contributing to the yearly deficits.

Let's get the SAME MESSAGE from the CBO, without the merry dishonest accounting for whether SSec is broke or not..

Federal Debt and Interest Costs | Congressional Budget Office

Gross debt, which comprises federal debt held by the public plus Treasury securities held by federal trust funds and other government accounts, is sometimes used to evaluate the government's overall fiscal situation. At the end of 2010, gross federal debt totaled $13.5 trillion--the $9.0 trillion in debt held by the public plus $4.5 trillion in debt held by government accounts. More than half of the latter amount is held by the Social Security trust funds. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year.

And again, the "interest" is phony accounting to ALLOW the govt to PAY the debts they owe to Soc Sec. Does not matter to yearly budgeting and deficit spending by the US Treasury. IGNORE it and WEEP at the deception.. The estimates of deficit spending by the Treasury have already EXCEEDED the projections in the SSA statement below after 2012.

Trustees Reports

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers

 

[flacaltenn]

In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.

Here's the unwinding of phony SSA accounting. As far as THEY are concerned, the Treasury owes THEM the money that was stolen plus interest -- so everything is peachy. But on the REAL FEDERAL BUDGET -- it's all liability that not one penny has been previously given to the SSA. NOTHING OF VALUE IN "the Trust Fund" but accounting ledgers with IOU notations in literally a bunch of paper binders.

So -- which of the options -- "the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public." --- is being implemented?? Of course it's the LATTER choice. They are "borrowing from public" to pay every penny of SS income shortfalls.

Which MEANS --- you were ROBBED TWICE with DUAL INTEREST for the same theft of excess FICA that workers previously paid.


Let that sink in for a week. With your full attention on the implications of that.

 

[Care4all]

But they DON"T only go for their future benefit!!! How do you think they get to project a deficit of only $890 billion when they are already in debt over $1.1+ trillion??? That extra $3 to $4 hundred billion is coming from payroll taxes!

Not any more. SocSec hasn't had a surplus to steal in over 7 years. It's not possible to show lower deficits by stealing the "overpayments" from the working poor anymore.

That WAS however, how Clinton and Gingrich "balanced" their budget. By counting the SSec MASSIVE surpluses for those years as THEIR income. Not trust fund investment.

I had thought so too, that there were no more SS Surpluses but I just checked and there are still surpluses of of Social Security and the federal Budget is still borrowing it, look at 2017!!!

View attachment 210948

Shoot! Some of my screen shot was cut off! But it still shows the important parts, in 2017 there was a $44.1 BILLION dollar surplus!!!

here's the link with the full charts....

Social Security Ran a $44 Billion Surplus in 2017 -- So, Why Is the Program in Trouble?

This is all of the PHONY public accounting. Because it includes INTEREST on the "debt". When in reality, the interest on the debt is just another payment from the Treasury on that years budget. There is no "lock box" with Trillions or Billions of $$ in it that can used to reduce Soc Sec shortfalls. ANY cash shortfall is paid thru deficit spending. The fiction is that US Treasury is paying back "interest" on the debt. But unlike REAL BONDS tthat pay YEARLY CASH interest to bond holders --- these are not negotiable, marketable, transferable securities.. It's a book-keeping entry on a sheet of paper. Nothing was ever paid until the year they need to cough up some SSec shortfall money.

And it must be paid out of yearly deficit spending EVERY YEAR now. There's not a PENNY of anything in the Trust Fund that can pay a check to a SS recipient.

So instead of 44Bill surplus that they brag about in your charts for 2017, you need to SUBTRACT the $85Bill "payment" of interest that the Treasury coughed up in 2017 and be REAL SKEPTICAL about them counting the TAXATION of Soc Income as "Trust Fund income". Because the taxation of SS benefits does NOT benefit Soc Sec. It's major fraud if a public company pulled this scam in accounting. The deficit spending REQUIRED in 2017 to fill the SS FICA income shortfall approached $80BIll.

Lemme remind you of what is lurking in the back pages of EVERY YEARLY SSA budget report. The "fine print". Here's the version of 2009 but I know it's in later versions as well. READ IT CAREFULLY....

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Sanders Misleads on Social Security - FactCheck.org

“Social Security adds to the unified deficit, which is the deficit we almost all discuss all the time,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in an email interview. “It does so because we spend a lot more on Social Security benefits than we raise in payroll tax and other related revenue.”
Goldwein told us that Sanders’ statement contains a kernel of truth in that Social Security technically can’t run a debt. “That means that any [yearly] deficits it’s running now can only legally be paid because it was running surpluses in the past,” he says. But the government spent the surplus on other things. It owes Social Security the money, which is held in the form of Treasury securities. In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.
Because current payroll taxes don’t produce enough revenue to pay Social Security benefits, the program is contributing to the yearly deficits.

Let's get the SAME MESSAGE from the CBO, without the merry dishonest accounting for whether SSec is broke or not..

Federal Debt and Interest Costs | Congressional Budget Office

Gross debt, which comprises federal debt held by the public plus Treasury securities held by federal trust funds and other government accounts, is sometimes used to evaluate the government's overall fiscal situation. At the end of 2010, gross federal debt totaled $13.5 trillion--the $9.0 trillion in debt held by the public plus $4.5 trillion in debt held by government accounts. More than half of the latter amount is held by the Social Security trust funds. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year.

And again, the "interest" is phony accounting to ALLOW the govt to PAY the debts they owe to Soc Sec. Does not matter to yearly budgeting and deficit spending by the US Treasury. IGNORE it and WEEP at the deception.. The estimates of deficit spending by the Treasury have already EXCEEDED the projections in the SSA statement below after 2012.

Trustees Reports

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers

yep.... looks like a lot of funny money business to me....!!!

But I wasn't arguing those points, just was showing that there was a 44 billion dollar surplus that was used to pay for their spending in the federal budget.... so on their yearly budget books, like in every budget the past 30 years, there was an SS surplus used for what should have been income taxes as the payer....

 

[Slade3200]

And here is our fiscally "responsible" Republican Party. What happened to the deficit hawks? What happened to all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the growing debt when Obama was in office?

The Trump administration last month sharply revised upward its deficit estimates, projecting annual deficits will once again top $1 trillion next year.

For the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30, the administration is now projecting a deficit of $890 billion. That would be up 33.7 percent from last year’s deficit of $665.8 billion.

The administration’s July estimates project that the deficit will top $1 trillion in 2019, climbing to $1.1 trillion that year, and remaining above $1 trillion for three years.

US budget deficit totals $76.9 billion in July

Republicans only cared about that when Trump was running for office. Now they could care less.

Trump was never afraid of running deficits. Said so MULTIPLE times in his campaign. Voters knew well he had no fundamental opposition to running debts. Look at his business finances.

So when Trump said he would run the government like a business.......he meant massively increasing its debt load?

Probably so. When your whole venture is risky as many of his were, the financing thru loans was the LEAST scary part. He actually said more than once in the campaign that running deficits were NOT a "bad thing".

He also spoke of our national debt like it was the same thing as personal or business debt. Made me question whether he understood the difference

 

[flacaltenn]

nope, we know all about the SS surpluses used in the budget to balance the budget, including under Clinton.... And clinton did NOT use all of the SS surpluses for what federal income taxes should have paid for in his budget.... he had SS money left over, even AFTER some was used to pay for their spending, and with those funds he spent them on buying back loans we owed to other Nations that we borrowed money from..... is my understanding of it....?

There were TINY budget surpluses. After they DID spend every penny of Soc Sec surplus. So they had no concept of HOW to "buy back" existing Treasury Bonds held in private or by nations -- because it had been so long that there was a surplus!!! There was a program to do that. But in total during the few years the budget was balanced, it amounted to less than about $20Bill.

What SHOULD have happened with the SSec surpluses -- all $2Trill of it -- was to use EVERY DOLLAR of the surpluses to BUY BACK EXISTING Treasury bonds and REDUCE the overall debt for the future. THAT -- would have been a net benefit to the SS Trust Fund. But instead they SPENT it. INCREASED the debt by that amount and Soc Sec got NOTHING of value for it.

 

[flacaltenn]

But they DON"T only go for their future benefit!!! How do you think they get to project a deficit of only $890 billion when they are already in debt over $1.1+ trillion??? That extra $3 to $4 hundred billion is coming from payroll taxes!

Not any more. SocSec hasn't had a surplus to steal in over 7 years. It's not possible to show lower deficits by stealing the "overpayments" from the working poor anymore.

That WAS however, how Clinton and Gingrich "balanced" their budget. By counting the SSec MASSIVE surpluses for those years as THEIR income. Not trust fund investment.

I had thought so too, that there were no more SS Surpluses but I just checked and there are still surpluses of of Social Security and the federal Budget is still borrowing it, look at 2017!!!

View attachment 210948

Shoot! Some of my screen shot was cut off! But it still shows the important parts, in 2017 there was a $44.1 BILLION dollar surplus!!!

here's the link with the full charts....

Social Security Ran a $44 Billion Surplus in 2017 -- So, Why Is the Program in Trouble?

This is all of the PHONY public accounting. Because it includes INTEREST on the "debt". When in reality, the interest on the debt is just another payment from the Treasury on that years budget. There is no "lock box" with Trillions or Billions of $$ in it that can used to reduce Soc Sec shortfalls. ANY cash shortfall is paid thru deficit spending. The fiction is that US Treasury is paying back "interest" on the debt. But unlike REAL BONDS tthat pay YEARLY CASH interest to bond holders --- these are not negotiable, marketable, transferable securities.. It's a book-keeping entry on a sheet of paper. Nothing was ever paid until the year they need to cough up some SSec shortfall money.

And it must be paid out of yearly deficit spending EVERY YEAR now. There's not a PENNY of anything in the Trust Fund that can pay a check to a SS recipient.

So instead of 44Bill surplus that they brag about in your charts for 2017, you need to SUBTRACT the $85Bill "payment" of interest that the Treasury coughed up in 2017 and be REAL SKEPTICAL about them counting the TAXATION of Soc Income as "Trust Fund income". Because the taxation of SS benefits does NOT benefit Soc Sec. It's major fraud if a public company pulled this scam in accounting. The deficit spending REQUIRED in 2017 to fill the SS FICA income shortfall approached $80BIll.

Lemme remind you of what is lurking in the back pages of EVERY YEARLY SSA budget report. The "fine print". Here's the version of 2009 but I know it's in later versions as well. READ IT CAREFULLY....

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Sanders Misleads on Social Security - FactCheck.org

“Social Security adds to the unified deficit, which is the deficit we almost all discuss all the time,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in an email interview. “It does so because we spend a lot more on Social Security benefits than we raise in payroll tax and other related revenue.”
Goldwein told us that Sanders’ statement contains a kernel of truth in that Social Security technically can’t run a debt. “That means that any [yearly] deficits it’s running now can only legally be paid because it was running surpluses in the past,” he says. But the government spent the surplus on other things. It owes Social Security the money, which is held in the form of Treasury securities. In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.
Because current payroll taxes don’t produce enough revenue to pay Social Security benefits, the program is contributing to the yearly deficits.

Let's get the SAME MESSAGE from the CBO, without the merry dishonest accounting for whether SSec is broke or not..

Federal Debt and Interest Costs | Congressional Budget Office

Gross debt, which comprises federal debt held by the public plus Treasury securities held by federal trust funds and other government accounts, is sometimes used to evaluate the government's overall fiscal situation. At the end of 2010, gross federal debt totaled $13.5 trillion--the $9.0 trillion in debt held by the public plus $4.5 trillion in debt held by government accounts. More than half of the latter amount is held by the Social Security trust funds. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year.

And again, the "interest" is phony accounting to ALLOW the govt to PAY the debts they owe to Soc Sec. Does not matter to yearly budgeting and deficit spending by the US Treasury. IGNORE it and WEEP at the deception.. The estimates of deficit spending by the Treasury have already EXCEEDED the projections in the SSA statement below after 2012.

Trustees Reports

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers

yep.... looks like a lot of funny money business to me....!!!

But I wasn't arguing those points, just was showing that there was a 44 billion dollar surplus that was used to pay for their spending in the federal budget.... so on their yearly budget books, like in every budget the past 30 years, there was an SS surplus used for what should have been income taxes as the payer....

As I explained. From the phony accounting on SSA trustees side -- that was true. But they were BROKE. And every penny of their cash shortfall -- which was about $80Bill in that year had to come from NEW borrowing by the Treasury. Meaning many working taxpayers were paying AGAIN for the money they had stolen from them the first time.

It's cynical and diabolical actually to allow the SSA to make those claims. In order to avoid having a SINGLE person in political leadership be honest with them about the theft. If it was a private company -- under the SEC -- they'd all be in jail.

I've seen about 4 politicians lay this out. Quietly, without fanfare. Harry Reid, Ron Paul, and 2 others I can't recall at the moment. ANd NO ONE since the SS income went negative has said a word.

 

[Care4all]

But they DON"T only go for their future benefit!!! How do you think they get to project a deficit of only $890 billion when they are already in debt over $1.1+ trillion??? That extra $3 to $4 hundred billion is coming from payroll taxes!

Not any more. SocSec hasn't had a surplus to steal in over 7 years. It's not possible to show lower deficits by stealing the "overpayments" from the working poor anymore.

That WAS however, how Clinton and Gingrich "balanced" their budget. By counting the SSec MASSIVE surpluses for those years as THEIR income. Not trust fund investment.

I had thought so too, that there were no more SS Surpluses but I just checked and there are still surpluses of of Social Security and the federal Budget is still borrowing it, look at 2017!!!

View attachment 210948

Shoot! Some of my screen shot was cut off! But it still shows the important parts, in 2017 there was a $44.1 BILLION dollar surplus!!!

here's the link with the full charts....

Social Security Ran a $44 Billion Surplus in 2017 -- So, Why Is the Program in Trouble?

This is all of the PHONY public accounting. Because it includes INTEREST on the "debt". When in reality, the interest on the debt is just another payment from the Treasury on that years budget. There is no "lock box" with Trillions or Billions of $$ in it that can used to reduce Soc Sec shortfalls. ANY cash shortfall is paid thru deficit spending. The fiction is that US Treasury is paying back "interest" on the debt. But unlike REAL BONDS tthat pay YEARLY CASH interest to bond holders --- these are not negotiable, marketable, transferable securities.. It's a book-keeping entry on a sheet of paper. Nothing was ever paid until the year they need to cough up some SSec shortfall money.

And it must be paid out of yearly deficit spending EVERY YEAR now. There's not a PENNY of anything in the Trust Fund that can pay a check to a SS recipient.

So instead of 44Bill surplus that they brag about in your charts for 2017, you need to SUBTRACT the $85Bill "payment" of interest that the Treasury coughed up in 2017 and be REAL SKEPTICAL about them counting the TAXATION of Soc Income as "Trust Fund income". Because the taxation of SS benefits does NOT benefit Soc Sec. It's major fraud if a public company pulled this scam in accounting. The deficit spending REQUIRED in 2017 to fill the SS FICA income shortfall approached $80BIll.

Lemme remind you of what is lurking in the back pages of EVERY YEARLY SSA budget report. The "fine print". Here's the version of 2009 but I know it's in later versions as well. READ IT CAREFULLY....

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Sanders Misleads on Social Security - FactCheck.org

“Social Security adds to the unified deficit, which is the deficit we almost all discuss all the time,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in an email interview. “It does so because we spend a lot more on Social Security benefits than we raise in payroll tax and other related revenue.”
Goldwein told us that Sanders’ statement contains a kernel of truth in that Social Security technically can’t run a debt. “That means that any [yearly] deficits it’s running now can only legally be paid because it was running surpluses in the past,” he says. But the government spent the surplus on other things. It owes Social Security the money, which is held in the form of Treasury securities. In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.
Because current payroll taxes don’t produce enough revenue to pay Social Security benefits, the program is contributing to the yearly deficits.

Let's get the SAME MESSAGE from the CBO, without the merry dishonest accounting for whether SSec is broke or not..

Federal Debt and Interest Costs | Congressional Budget Office

Gross debt, which comprises federal debt held by the public plus Treasury securities held by federal trust funds and other government accounts, is sometimes used to evaluate the government's overall fiscal situation. At the end of 2010, gross federal debt totaled $13.5 trillion--the $9.0 trillion in debt held by the public plus $4.5 trillion in debt held by government accounts. More than half of the latter amount is held by the Social Security trust funds. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year.

And again, the "interest" is phony accounting to ALLOW the govt to PAY the debts they owe to Soc Sec. Does not matter to yearly budgeting and deficit spending by the US Treasury. IGNORE it and WEEP at the deception.. The estimates of deficit spending by the Treasury have already EXCEEDED the projections in the SSA statement below after 2012.

Trustees Reports

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers

yep.... looks like a lot of funny money business to me....!!!

But I wasn't arguing those points, just was showing that there was a 44 billion dollar surplus that was used to pay for their spending in the federal budget.... so on their yearly budget books, like in every budget the past 30 years, there was an SS surplus used for what should have been income taxes as the payer....

As I explained. From the phony accounting on SSA trustees side -- that was true. But they were BROKE. And every penny of their cash shortfall -- which was about $80Bill in that year had to come from NEW borrowing by the Treasury. Meaning many working taxpayers were paying AGAIN for the money they had stolen from them the first time.

It's cynical and diabolical actually to allow the SSA to make those claims. In order to avoid having a SINGLE person be honest with them about the theft. If it was a private company -- under the SEC -- they'd all be in jail.

yep!

my question is, why are we giving income tax cuts without cutting discretionary spending, when we owe so much to Social Security?

 

[flacaltenn]

Not any more. SocSec hasn't had a surplus to steal in over 7 years. It's not possible to show lower deficits by stealing the "overpayments" from the working poor anymore.

That WAS however, how Clinton and Gingrich "balanced" their budget. By counting the SSec MASSIVE surpluses for those years as THEIR income. Not trust fund investment.

I had thought so too, that there were no more SS Surpluses but I just checked and there are still surpluses of of Social Security and the federal Budget is still borrowing it, look at 2017!!!

View attachment 210948

Shoot! Some of my screen shot was cut off! But it still shows the important parts, in 2017 there was a $44.1 BILLION dollar surplus!!!

here's the link with the full charts....

Social Security Ran a $44 Billion Surplus in 2017 -- So, Why Is the Program in Trouble?

This is all of the PHONY public accounting. Because it includes INTEREST on the "debt". When in reality, the interest on the debt is just another payment from the Treasury on that years budget. There is no "lock box" with Trillions or Billions of $$ in it that can used to reduce Soc Sec shortfalls. ANY cash shortfall is paid thru deficit spending. The fiction is that US Treasury is paying back "interest" on the debt. But unlike REAL BONDS tthat pay YEARLY CASH interest to bond holders --- these are not negotiable, marketable, transferable securities.. It's a book-keeping entry on a sheet of paper. Nothing was ever paid until the year they need to cough up some SSec shortfall money.

And it must be paid out of yearly deficit spending EVERY YEAR now. There's not a PENNY of anything in the Trust Fund that can pay a check to a SS recipient.

So instead of 44Bill surplus that they brag about in your charts for 2017, you need to SUBTRACT the $85Bill "payment" of interest that the Treasury coughed up in 2017 and be REAL SKEPTICAL about them counting the TAXATION of Soc Income as "Trust Fund income". Because the taxation of SS benefits does NOT benefit Soc Sec. It's major fraud if a public company pulled this scam in accounting. The deficit spending REQUIRED in 2017 to fill the SS FICA income shortfall approached $80BIll.

Lemme remind you of what is lurking in the back pages of EVERY YEARLY SSA budget report. The "fine print". Here's the version of 2009 but I know it's in later versions as well. READ IT CAREFULLY....

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Sanders Misleads on Social Security - FactCheck.org

“Social Security adds to the unified deficit, which is the deficit we almost all discuss all the time,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in an email interview. “It does so because we spend a lot more on Social Security benefits than we raise in payroll tax and other related revenue.”
Goldwein told us that Sanders’ statement contains a kernel of truth in that Social Security technically can’t run a debt. “That means that any [yearly] deficits it’s running now can only legally be paid because it was running surpluses in the past,” he says. But the government spent the surplus on other things. It owes Social Security the money, which is held in the form of Treasury securities. In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.
Because current payroll taxes don’t produce enough revenue to pay Social Security benefits, the program is contributing to the yearly deficits.

Let's get the SAME MESSAGE from the CBO, without the merry dishonest accounting for whether SSec is broke or not..

Federal Debt and Interest Costs | Congressional Budget Office

Gross debt, which comprises federal debt held by the public plus Treasury securities held by federal trust funds and other government accounts, is sometimes used to evaluate the government's overall fiscal situation. At the end of 2010, gross federal debt totaled $13.5 trillion--the $9.0 trillion in debt held by the public plus $4.5 trillion in debt held by government accounts. More than half of the latter amount is held by the Social Security trust funds. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year.

And again, the "interest" is phony accounting to ALLOW the govt to PAY the debts they owe to Soc Sec. Does not matter to yearly budgeting and deficit spending by the US Treasury. IGNORE it and WEEP at the deception.. The estimates of deficit spending by the Treasury have already EXCEEDED the projections in the SSA statement below after 2012.

Trustees Reports

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers

yep.... looks like a lot of funny money business to me....!!!

But I wasn't arguing those points, just was showing that there was a 44 billion dollar surplus that was used to pay for their spending in the federal budget.... so on their yearly budget books, like in every budget the past 30 years, there was an SS surplus used for what should have been income taxes as the payer....

As I explained. From the phony accounting on SSA trustees side -- that was true. But they were BROKE. And every penny of their cash shortfall -- which was about $80Bill in that year had to come from NEW borrowing by the Treasury. Meaning many working taxpayers were paying AGAIN for the money they had stolen from them the first time.

It's cynical and diabolical actually to allow the SSA to make those claims. In order to avoid having a SINGLE person be honest with them about the theft. If it was a private company -- under the SEC -- they'd all be in jail.

yep!

my question is, why are we giving income tax cuts without cutting discretionary spending, when we owe so much to Social Security?

Because Congress is too lazy to manage the fiscal budget responsibly. THey would rather just toy with juicing the economy via tax cuts to kick up the income (which it does TEMPORARILY) -- than do the hard work of combining programs, agencies, and cutting the scope of what they have taken on.

They need to focus on fundamentals. Even progressives realize that running HUGE debts and deficits is not good for their goals. There is so much trimming to do. Even the military. But we do not really a Dept of Commerce. It's 80% corporate welfare. Take the 20% like Weights and Measures and other old standards out to some other agency and close it. Similar with the Dept of Education. The rank/file of teachers and classrooms see a net NEGATIVE from it's existence. Take the vital services out of it and put them in HealthHS. And so on...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

so fla you are all for cuts to medicare? which everyone was forced to pay into

Nope. The promise was universal retirement insurance and universal senior care. And any reforms should not affect anyone over 50. BOTH tribes are responsible for the thievery and the lying. But YOUR tribe blew smoke and puffed out bullshit about the plan to USE THE SSec SURPLUS for the BENEFIT of SSec --- when libertarian think tank proposed the plans to trade volunteer reductions in FICA for volunteer reductions in future benefits. That would have been about $500Bill in actual help to the Treasury that now has to book all shortfalls as NEW DEBT.

So you were robbed twice for the same amount.

Just don't even TRY to propose Universal Anything in the future where the Govt can't create a REAL unraidable trust fund and make REAL investments in any surpluses. I don't think ANYONE in 2020 is gonna trust this govt with Universal anything anymore.

That’s the issue in a nutshell. Government is nothing but additional overhead. Why give them added control of anything fiscal when at best they add to costs?

 

[Mac1958]

The GOP can fix all this with one teeny, tiny little change: Cut spending before taxes.

During campaigns, tell us EXACTLY what you're going to CUT first. Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Social Security, Departments, ALL OF IT.

Then, see if you get elected.

If you do, first make those cuts, and then cut taxes.

Easy peasy! You're welcome!
.

Easier fix is cut defense (really war department) by 90% and eliminate the CIA and NSA. Win win for all Americans and the world.

Well, I'd love to see the plan.

The GOP is never very forthcoming during campaigns, unfortunately.
.

I'm sure you would as Dems play politics on everything. What are Dems solution. You complain and offer notgnot in return.

Tax cuts historically increase revenue.

Are you saying you wouldn't make any cuts?

Isn't it fiscally responsible to follow through on promises?

Specificity would be helpful.
.

You FIRST..............show us your Great plans to SAVE US.........

I'm tired of people like you DEMANDING we show plans and OFFER NOTHING IN RETURN.........

Many plans and tactics have been presented by the GOP over time........and every time someone like you says.........YOU SUCK.......and when you are asked your plan we get nothing but static....................

So now ..............tell us your GRAND PLAN TO SAVE US ALL...........It is your turn.....not mine..........over time I've posted many things.

I already provided a clear and easy idea to implement: Cut spending first, then taxes.

Why don't you like that idea? Can't the GOP handle that? Is it beyond its capacity?
.

 

[eagle1462010]

Easier fix is cut defense (really war department) by 90% and eliminate the CIA and NSA. Win win for all Americans and the world.

Well, I'd love to see the plan.

The GOP is never very forthcoming during campaigns, unfortunately.
.

I'm sure you would as Dems play politics on everything. What are Dems solution. You complain and offer notgnot in return.

Tax cuts historically increase revenue.

Are you saying you wouldn't make any cuts?

Isn't it fiscally responsible to follow through on promises?

Specificity would be helpful.
.

You FIRST..............show us your Great plans to SAVE US.........

I'm tired of people like you DEMANDING we show plans and OFFER NOTHING IN RETURN.........

Many plans and tactics have been presented by the GOP over time........and every time someone like you says.........YOU SUCK.......and when you are asked your plan we get nothing but static....................

So now ..............tell us your GRAND PLAN TO SAVE US ALL...........It is your turn.....not mine..........over time I've posted many things.

I already provided a clear and easy idea to implement: Cut spending first, then taxes.

Why don't you like that idea? Can't the GOP handle that? Is it beyond its capacity?
.

You asked for specifics. I have seen none. I stand by my post.

The penny plan is the best plan yet, but none of them really address the heart of the matter. Mandatory spending is the elephant in the room. Unfunded liabilities and pensions are going to tank us.

Historically we take in 18.2% of the gdp. We are spending at 24% of the gdp. The math doesn't like and every year the CBO reports it is unsustainable. We must cut 6% of gdp in budget for the historical average. But that doesn't add the interest on the debt, which will be the largest budget item in our future, a cycle of perpetual debt.

No politician will really adfraddthis issue because ss and reform is political suicide.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, I'd love to see the plan.

The GOP is never very forthcoming during campaigns, unfortunately.
.

I'm sure you would as Dems play politics on everything. What are Dems solution. You complain and offer notgnot in return.

Tax cuts historically increase revenue.

Are you saying you wouldn't make any cuts?

Isn't it fiscally responsible to follow through on promises?

Specificity would be helpful.
.

You FIRST..............show us your Great plans to SAVE US.........

I'm tired of people like you DEMANDING we show plans and OFFER NOTHING IN RETURN.........

Many plans and tactics have been presented by the GOP over time........and every time someone like you says.........YOU SUCK.......and when you are asked your plan we get nothing but static....................

So now ..............tell us your GRAND PLAN TO SAVE US ALL...........It is your turn.....not mine..........over time I've posted many things.

I already provided a clear and easy idea to implement: Cut spending first, then taxes.

Why don't you like that idea? Can't the GOP handle that? Is it beyond its capacity?
.

You asked for specifics. I have seen none. I stand by my post.

The penny plan is the best plan yet, but none of them really address the heart of the matter. Mandatory spending is the elephant in the room. Unfunded liabilities and pensions are going to tank us.

Historically we take in 18.2% of the gdp. We are spending at 24% of the gdp. The math doesn't like and every year the CBO reports it is unsustainable. We must cut 6% of gdp in budget for the historical average. But that doesn't add the interest on the debt, which will be the largest budget item in our future, a cycle of perpetual debt.

No politician will really adfraddthis issue because ss and reform is political suicide.

Do you think it's a good idea to cut spending before cutting taxes, or not?
.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It has only been two years but by year 4 we need to have a surplus. Enough spending. Unfortunately it likely won't happen til year 5 because entitlements have to be addressed.

What about increasing revenue?[/QUOTWhat. Expenses would you like to

Aint' shifted a DAMN thing "from corporate to wage earners". The only wage earners paying ANY INCOME TAX AT ALL are making $100,000 or more. 1/2 of the wage earners now pay ZERO...

They pay payroll taxes, whose revenues are almost equal to income tax revenues and almost 5 times as much as corporate revenues.

That's because FICA is expensive. Those are UNIVERSAL programs. The proceeds are ONLY SUPPOSED to go for THEIR future benefit. I'm not impressed. Half of the folks in the pile pay ZERO to OPERATE the Federal govt. You cannot "load them" by cutting taxes elsewhere.

but the government has used about $3 TRILLION of social Security surplus funds to pay for expenditures that federal income taxes should have paid for....and now they are threatening and have reduced Social Security benefits because they can't afford to pay them back for what they used....

Also, since the beginning of taxes in this Nation, the poorest and poor overall, have not been taxed to pay for federal expenditures.... this is nothing new....

you simply can't get blood out of a turnip... it is inhumane to take from the poor, and has always been recognized as such....

since early Biblical times..... the poorest were never tithed, they received the tithe.

I'm sorry - but bullshit.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw somone use an EBT card to buy food, and then pay separately for a carton of cigarettes.
Complete with a handful of tattoos on them.
The poor are the only population left that still smoke in large percentages. And smoking is extremely expensive.
The Bible?? lol
There is no poverty in America that even begins to resemble biblical poverty.
How many poor people grow gardens to save on groceries? Like...none.
How many do odd jobs, use their trucks to haul stuff for people for cash?.... very, very few.
Right now we have two chairs, an old cabinet TV and an old washer in the basement. We have tried for 3 weeks to find someone to haul it out.
We posted on a local "looking to hire" website.... A group face book page... asked around.... can't find anyone. $100 plus $30 dump fee.
A $100 for about an hours work, and we can't find anyone.

So, in your view

Our poor do not suffer enough

Nice try.
They don't do enough for themselves.
In America, poverty is overwhelmingly self induced.

 

[eagle1462010]

Our career politicians lining their pockets for special interest have screwed our children. On this unsustainable path there is ruin. The longer we wait to deal with it the wosre it gets. A system that requiere more debt to sustain itself.

It will end like it has ended historically. A global reset and a monster depression. Those that did this will then grab all the real assets on paper. Then start the whole cycle again.

 

[eagle1462010]

I'm sure you would as Dems play politics on everything. What are Dems solution. You complain and offer notgnot in return.

Tax cuts historically increase revenue.

Are you saying you wouldn't make any cuts?

Isn't it fiscally responsible to follow through on promises?

Specificity would be helpful.
.

You FIRST..............show us your Great plans to SAVE US.........

I'm tired of people like you DEMANDING we show plans and OFFER NOTHING IN RETURN.........

Many plans and tactics have been presented by the GOP over time........and every time someone like you says.........YOU SUCK.......and when you are asked your plan we get nothing but static....................

So now ..............tell us your GRAND PLAN TO SAVE US ALL...........It is your turn.....not mine..........over time I've posted many things.

I already provided a clear and easy idea to implement: Cut spending first, then taxes.

Why don't you like that idea? Can't the GOP handle that? Is it beyond its capacity?
.

You asked for specifics. I have seen none. I stand by my post.

The penny plan is the best plan yet, but none of them really address the heart of the matter. Mandatory spending is the elephant in the room. Unfunded liabilities and pensions are going to tank us.

Historically we take in 18.2% of the gdp. We are spending at 24% of the gdp. The math doesn't like and every year the CBO reports it is unsustainable. We must cut 6% of gdp in budget for the historical average. But that doesn't add the interest on the debt, which will be the largest budget item in our future, a cycle of perpetual debt.

No politician will really adfraddthis issue because ss and reform is political suicide.

Do you think it's a good idea to cut spending before cutting taxes, or not?
.

Duh. Cutting spending. Freezing new spending and modifying social security and Medicare is the only way to have a shot at it. Like i just said. A cut of 6% of the GDP is required.

Ending Earmarks which are political bribes need to end. And stop being the world's police force is required.

 

[Mac1958]

Are you saying you wouldn't make any cuts?

Isn't it fiscally responsible to follow through on promises?

Specificity would be helpful.
.

You FIRST..............show us your Great plans to SAVE US.........

I'm tired of people like you DEMANDING we show plans and OFFER NOTHING IN RETURN.........

Many plans and tactics have been presented by the GOP over time........and every time someone like you says.........YOU SUCK.......and when you are asked your plan we get nothing but static....................

So now ..............tell us your GRAND PLAN TO SAVE US ALL...........It is your turn.....not mine..........over time I've posted many things.

I already provided a clear and easy idea to implement: Cut spending first, then taxes.

Why don't you like that idea? Can't the GOP handle that? Is it beyond its capacity?
.

You asked for specifics. I have seen none. I stand by my post.

The penny plan is the best plan yet, but none of them really address the heart of the matter. Mandatory spending is the elephant in the room. Unfunded liabilities and pensions are going to tank us.

Historically we take in 18.2% of the gdp. We are spending at 24% of the gdp. The math doesn't like and every year the CBO reports it is unsustainable. We must cut 6% of gdp in budget for the historical average. But that doesn't add the interest on the debt, which will be the largest budget item in our future, a cycle of perpetual debt.

No politician will really adfraddthis issue because ss and reform is political suicide.

Do you think it's a good idea to cut spending before cutting taxes, or not?
.

Duh. Cutting spending. Freezing new spending and modifying social security and Medicare is the only way to have a shot at it. Like i just said. A cut of 6% of the GDP is required.

Ending Earmarks which are political bribes need to end. And stop being the world's police force is required.

Then, going back to my original point, they should be specific as to what they want to cut, during the campaign.

Currently, they make vague references about spending cuts, sing loudly about cutting taxes, fool their voters into voting for them, and only cut taxes.

Is my idea unreasonable?
.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tax cuts dontd mean loss in revenues. Cut too deep and the market doesn't boom then you lose. Cut correctly and you get a book revenues go up.

Check out the liquity trap Japan.

 

[eagle1462010]

You FIRST..............show us your Great plans to SAVE US.........

I'm tired of people like you DEMANDING we show plans and OFFER NOTHING IN RETURN.........

Many plans and tactics have been presented by the GOP over time........and every time someone like you says.........YOU SUCK.......and when you are asked your plan we get nothing but static....................

So now ..............tell us your GRAND PLAN TO SAVE US ALL...........It is your turn.....not mine..........over time I've posted many things.

I already provided a clear and easy idea to implement: Cut spending first, then taxes.

Why don't you like that idea? Can't the GOP handle that? Is it beyond its capacity?
.

You asked for specifics. I have seen none. I stand by my post.

The penny plan is the best plan yet, but none of them really address the heart of the matter. Mandatory spending is the elephant in the room. Unfunded liabilities and pensions are going to tank us.

Historically we take in 18.2% of the gdp. We are spending at 24% of the gdp. The math doesn't like and every year the CBO reports it is unsustainable. We must cut 6% of gdp in budget for the historical average. But that doesn't add the interest on the debt, which will be the largest budget item in our future, a cycle of perpetual debt.

No politician will really adfraddthis issue because ss and reform is political suicide.

Do you think it's a good idea to cut spending before cutting taxes, or not?
.

Duh. Cutting spending. Freezing new spending and modifying social security and Medicare is the only way to have a shot at it. Like i just said. A cut of 6% of the GDP is required.

Ending Earmarks which are political bribes need to end. And stop being the world's police force is required.

Then, going back to my original point, they should be specific as to what they want to cut, during the campaign.

Currently, they make vague references about spending cuts, sing loudly about cutting taxes, fool their voters into voting for them, and only cut taxes.

Is my idea unreasonable?
.

Lol. GOP should be specific so you can do the political dance of rhetoric. Both sides need to take part. Not one side bitching about proposed cuts. Dems play that crap all the time.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Elaborate?

Hi, sorry. I didn't see your response. I'm gradually trying to make my way out of here and back to creating content over at home base. Ha.

Anyway. The GDP counts government spending as a positive. The flipside, however, is that the actual spending is a net negative on the economy. So, really what I was saying is that the GDP is a very poor indicator of anything. Nobody really pays attention to it except the traders. Especially the people who are suffering. They don't care about GDP. And any of the really wise traders are likely to start backing out of the market . Though, most traders buy into the false dichotomy that is the GDP. They tend to believe we're moving onto a new paradigm. We're not, though. We're moving in the opposite direction. But, you know, it's a living, I suppose.

The debt is too big. And malinvestment is beyond control. And the GDP is a poor indicator of the true state of affairs. As I said, the GDP counts government spending as a positive, whereas the spending is more correctly a net negative on the economy. For the GDP to count it as a positive is simply distortion.

Expect a major, major, correction some time very soon. Across the board, too. In all areas. The market is distorted. A 50 percent drop in the market isn't out of the question. It really isn't. That bubble is leaking everywhere and they have not a clue where it's all going. They've been inflating that thing since 1971. Ha. We need to liquidate the debt and the malinvestment. It won't happen, though, so it's gonna be each man for himself. Of course, the latter being my own conjecture.

Last people I'd grant a dime's worth of credibility to in discussion such as this are the market folk. And I'm actually saying that respectfully. They have to see it coming. There's no way they don't or can't if they understand economic theory and monetary policy. QE is proven a failure. That's just kickin the can down the road and making it worse. That, too, is understandable. Nobody wants it to pop on their watch.

What'sworse is Trump is a spender. He may want to end some social welfare, but he's a heavy military spender. Which, btw, is not defense spending, since nobody has done anythign to us. That's another topic, though.

Alright, then. I suppose that's okay cliff notes.