bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 ....Oh BTW Nixon was the one who added SS to the general revenues so don't take it up with Obama you can take that one up with Nixon. Another myth from the Great White North? Sorry, but you be wrong on both counts: Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself. http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
pinko Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) If the programs listed on page 13 were lessen by just half a percent each, you could easily fund everything on page 14. The only thing you'd have to halt is federal employee pay, and whatever "other" spending is. I don't see a problem doing that for a month or two if that's the time it takes to put together a proper deal. I would suggest you read the analysis to its conclusion. You really are out of your league. Punked has it right. Edited July 13, 2011 by pinko Quote
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 The billions of dollars in tax and other revenue that comes into the government on a weekly basis. I see you've bought into the hype and demagoguery. Pathetic. Especially social security. It has it's own revenue stream. Payroll taxes! YOu don't need to borrow anything for that! Barack Scumbag Obama's just trying to scare social security recipients. It's more than disgusting. You really don't understand the problem Shady. That money coming in MIGHT MIGHT be enough to service the debt as best the US government can it WILL NOT be enough to hire and keep employed the people that process and send out SS. You know those Public employees you hate so much. AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH TO PAY MEDICARE AND SS. It just wont. Unless you want to stop paying the military. Is that what you want Shady? Is that what Republicans want cause these are the choices you will have to make. THAT HAS BEEN THE PRESIDENTS POINT THE WHOLE TIME. It seems like people like you are just figuring this out now. Quote
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Another myth from the Great White North? Sorry, but you be wrong on both counts: Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself. http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html We can argue about who f--ked SS in another thread can we just agree that it can be paid for if the debt ceiling isn't raised and Shady is clearly misguided in his statement the president is being evil by being honest that if the government doesn't raise the debt ceiling there is no way he can say the checks go out. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE THING AND SHADY IS JUST GETTING THIS NOW. I thought he knew this 20 pages ago but he clearly has no clue how US finances work. Quote
Shady Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 That money coming in MIGHT MIGHT be enough to service the debt It's more than enough to service the debt. Just not enough to service the debt and everything else at currently inflated Obama type spending levels. If Obama thinks he's having a tough time now. Just wait until Republicans submit next years budget at 2008 spending levels. I wish I could see his face! Quote
pinko Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 It's more than enough to service the debt. Just not enough to service the debt and everything else at currently inflated Obama type spending levels. If Obama thinks he's having a tough time now. Just wait until Republicans submit next years budget at 2008 spending levels. I wish I could see his face! You really are a fool. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 We can argue about who f--ked SS in another thread can we just agree.... Oh no...you just had to open up your yap and try to squeeze in one more dig, only to get shot down. Just stick to the facts please...if you can. I already told you guys that reaching the debt limit does not necessarily equal default. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 It's more than enough to service the debt. Just not enough to service the debt and everything else at currently inflated Obama type spending levels. If Obama thinks he's having a tough time now. Just wait until Republicans submit next years budget at 2008 spending levels. I wish I could see his face! Again you show you know nothing Shady. Please tell me how if you freeze the debt ceiling, you have enough to pay the debt, SS, Medicare, and for the Troops. I will even let you shut every government department down lay everyone off in government. Do the math for the month for August please. SHOW ME SOME NUMBERS. Know why I ask because I know you know nothing. Quote
pinko Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Again you show you know nothing Shady. Please tell me how if you freeze the debt ceiling, you have enough to pay the debt, SS, Medicare, and for the Troops. I will even let you shut every government department down lay everyone off in government. Do the math for the month for August please. SHOW ME SOME NUMBERS. Know why I ask because I know you know nothing. Shady has boxed himself in. I am glad you won't let him off the hook. Edited July 13, 2011 by pinko Quote
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Oh no...you just had to open up your yap and try to squeeze in one more dig, only to get shot down. Just stick to the facts please...if you can. I already told you guys that reaching the debt limit does not necessarily equal default. Again you want to start a thread and I will argue how Nixon and a Democratic House f-cked SS by letting it be borrowed against but I am not getting off topic in this one. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Again you want to start a thread and I will argue how Nixon and a Democratic House f-cked SS by letting it be borrowed against but I am not getting off topic in this one. LOL! Of course you want another thread, because you have already stepped into partisan crap. Then why did you bring up the topic at all? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
TimG Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Again you want to start a thread and I will argue how Nixon and a Democratic House f-cked SS by letting it be borrowed against but I am not getting off topic in this one.Every pension fund in existence invests in government bonds (i.e. the government "borrows" the money in the pension fund and gives the pension an "IOU"). It is not clear to me why SS should be any different. Quote
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 LOL! Of course you want another thread, because you have already stepped into partisan crap. Then why did you bring up the topic at all? I was just pointing out SS isn't in some sort of lock box which Obama will raid as some evil villain. He is talking about realities which Shady does not like at all. Quote
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Every pension fund in existence invests in government bonds (i.e. the government "borrows" the money in the pension fund and gives the pension an "IOU"). It is not clear to me why SS should be any different. Again start another thread about that. Fact is SS is tied to the US's ability to find money and right now that means borrowing. There aren't enough revenues in the short term to pay month to month and even if there was there would be no infrastructure to get those payments out because you have to pay to do that. Edited July 13, 2011 by punked Quote
TimG Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Fact is SS is tied to the US's ability to find money and right now that means borrowing. There aren't enough revenues in the short term to pay month to month and even if there was there would be no infrastructure to get those payments out because you have to pay to do that.You can start the thread if you like but your response fails to answer the question on why is SS any different from any pension fund that invests in government bonds? Quote
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 You can start the thread if you like but your response fails to answer the question on why is SS any different from any pension fund that invests in government bonds? Never said it was, I said you can't pay for it with out raising the debt ceiling. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Never said it was, I said you can't pay for it with out raising the debt ceiling. This is false....Treasury would just have to decide where to curtail other outlays. It is not an absolute outcome. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) This is false....Treasury would just have to decide where to curtail other outlays. It is not an absolute outcome. Sure maybe if they choose to stop paying the military maybe they could send out SS checks. Is that the choice Republicans want? There just isn't enough money to make the choice to shut the government down but leave SS, Medicare, and the Military alone. One of those things would HAVE to be cut, you could do something like cut SS checks in half bring troops home and start lay offs in the Military and stop all procurements as well as shut the government down. They are tough decision acting like they aren't like Shady does is wrong though. We agree the government would have money we disagree on what would have to go. I mean Justice, Defense, Medicare, and SS make up much more then half the pie they are 80% of all spending. I guess you could open up the prisons is that the choice we want to make? How about we stop trying criminals? Tough choices which people would hate would have to be made. Obama is just pointing that out and Shady is angry about that. Edited July 13, 2011 by punked Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Sure maybe if they choose to stop paying the military maybe they could send out SS checks. Is that the choice Republicans want? It's not a "Republican" choice....Treasury belongs to the Prez. I just wanted to point out that your assessment of the situation is not technically accurate. They are tough decision acting like they aren't like Shady does is wrong though. We agree the government would have money we disagree on what would have to go. I mean Justice, Defense, Medicare, and SS make up much more then half the pie they are 80% of all spending. I guess you could open up the prisons is that the choice we want to make? How about we stop trying criminals? Tough choices which people would hate would have to be made. Obama is just pointing that out and Shady is angry about that. The issue is not your pissing contest with another member. My military pay was delayed back in the 80's because of issues just like this. It's not a new experience...except perhaps for you. Edited July 13, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 It's not a "Republican" choice....Treasury belongs to the Prez. I just wanted to point out that your assessment of the situation is not technically accurate. The issue is not your pissing contest with another member. My military pay was delayed back in the 80's because of issues just like this. It's not a new experience...except perhaps for you. Yes you are right the Republicans have no say in raising the debt ceiling. Sigh that was sarcasm. Never said it was a new thing. I said tough choices will need to be made and acting like the President is "being a meanie" because he is treating the public like adults is stupid. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Yes you are right the Republicans have no say in raising the debt ceiling. Sigh that was sarcasm. I don't think you understand how Treasury works....that was not sarcasm. Never said it was a new thing. I said tough choices will need to be made and acting like the President is "being a meanie" because he is treating the public like adults is stupid. The president needs to live within budgets and limits approved by an elected Congress. It's called a debt limit for a reason. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
TimG Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Never said it was, I said you can't pay for it with out raising the debt ceiling.Or they could issue IOUs to all of the military contractors who will grumble but bear it because they want repeat business. There are many other ways to minimize the impact on people but you can bet Obama will try to make it as painful as possible in order to try and gain political advantage. Quote
TimG Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 The president needs to live within budgets and limits approved by an elected Congress. It's called a debt limit for a reason.Frankly, this showdown is the best thing that could be happening to the US. It is forcing politicians to confront reality long before it becomes a catastrophe like Greece. Too many countries are sleep walking into a fiscal disaster (e.g. Japan) because their political systems do not encourage these kinds of knock down drag out fights that require a resolution. Quote
punked Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Or they could issue IOUs to all of the military contractors who will grumble but bear it because they want repeat business. There are many other ways to minimize the impact on people but you can bet Obama will try to make it as painful as possible in order to try and gain political advantage. The debt ceiling is a ceiling on the debt. IOUs are debt, I don't know if anyone ever explained to you what an IOU is. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Posted July 13, 2011 Secretary Geitner...do your job! “At issue is the stubborn fact that ultimate responsibility to use available Treasury funds to honor the debt obligations of the United States falls on you as Secretary of the Treasury. We believe it is irresponsible and harmful for you to sow the seeds of doubt in the market regarding the full faith and credit of the United States and ask that you set the record straight – that you will use all available Treasury funds necessary to prevent default while Congress addresses the looming debt crisis.” http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=7371d3a9-9435-4277-87ef-330fcf689087&p=PressReleases Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.