General Discussion

hypergrove

(23 posts)

45. Bingo, spot-on, you've nailed it.

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

Dec 2012

I am a bit amazed people don't see that the issue is minimizing future outlays, ie cash flow. The Fund will redeem its bonds, the Treasury will need to come up with the cash and has nowhere else to turn other than the private credit market where interest costs are higher.

So while SS does not contribute to PRESENT deficits, its preposterous to say that SS doesn't indirectly contribute to FUTURE deficits, for eaxctly the reason stated: "The contract has reached it's term, and (the) time has come for the beneficiaries of the SS surpluses to pay us back."

In my narrow view of reality, if I had a lotta money, I'd be worried about my taxes increasing to pay for past expenditures for foreign wars & drug wars & tax breaks & "gangland security" that clearly were poorly invested, to be as kind about it as I can. THOSE CRAVEN INVESTMENTS ARE EQUALLY THE FAULT OF BOTH DEMOCRATICS & REPUBLICANS. DON'T EVER FORGET THAT -- the politicians all know this but, in their mutual protection racket, have vowed a code of silence.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit??? [View all] grahamhgreen Dec 2012 OP

Why indeed. woo me with science Dec 2012 #1

Thanks for that video. Obama thinks liberalism is a tired, old ideology that needs to be replaced?? factsarenotfair Dec 2012 #42

Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938." woo me with science Dec 2012 #69

How can intelligent people fail to heed Obama's words and deeds: He is not a friend of Social byeya Dec 2012 #73

The words "not a bloodless process" are indeed chilling. factsarenotfair Dec 2012 #102

This message was self-deleted by its author woo me with science Dec 2012 #104

Because the Third Way believes that SS needs to be privatized and that the sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #2

I think the opposite argument could be made too democrattotheend Dec 2012 #5

so to "reduce the cost of the program" by cutting future benefits is ok with you? DrDan Dec 2012 #8

I never said it's ok democrattotheend Dec 2012 #9

I have to agree with your reasoning Freddie Dec 2012 #18

+1 SunSeeker Dec 2012 #23

We democrats did NOT stay home in 2010. Independents stayed home. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #82

there are other options that do not seem to be pursued - for example raising the cap DrDan Dec 2012 #35

Wait. Why is Social Security in the mix - WHEN IT DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT? grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #37

!!!! bvar22 Dec 2012 #68

Great photo! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #70

I was lucky enough to have lived in St Paul, Minnesota... bvar22 Dec 2012 #79

Amen. woo me with science Dec 2012 #76

That's absurd. Simply having those who earn over $110,000/yr pay ito it will keep grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #10

and/or include capital gains and "carried interest" reteachinwi Dec 2012 #27

That is a solution I could definitely get behind democrattotheend Dec 2012 #108

There is no reason to even mention SS in these negotiations and the Progressive Caucus xtraxritical Dec 2012 #31

I've never seen any figures on how raising the cap will raise sufficient sums of money customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #80

There's a bill introduced by Bernie Sanders that details all of it: grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #84

I see some pretty charts customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #92

Here are the core numbers in the PDF from the Social Security Chief Actuary: grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #98

But the whole reason this "cut" is being proposed is truedelphi Dec 2012 #53

"have the President sign and Executive Order recapturing that money" - grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #86

If only that were true. But the opposite is true. First of all SS is not in trouble sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #63

Hear Hear! Well said! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #87

I think YOU MIS READ WHAT I POSTED. truedelphi Dec 2012 #100

I'm sorry, I was trying to agree with you but didn't do it very well. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #105

all I know is that I am headachy and grouchy now that not a truedelphi Dec 2012 #106

Lol, I haven't had any egg nog either, so I wish I could join you also. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #107

Do you even know what a chained CPI is? daa Dec 2012 #66

Sorry, but that makes no sense... grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #110

Yep they first have to degrade and denature it kenny blankenship Dec 2012 #12

Neo-liberalism is a failure as policy duffyduff Dec 2012 #28

Yes, Neo-liberaliam has been tried in several places throughout the world and has been proved to byeya Dec 2012 #74

Certainly Social Security is Self-Funded, On the Road Dec 2012 #3

That's absurd. No one has to negotiate that which is simply not in play. Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #4

No excuse for adopting what they bring to our proposals. TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #6

If you are in control of negotiations, if your party wins an election, you get to sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #7

Look at OBAMA'S offers, not BOHNERS. Why did OBAMA put it on the table? grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #11

Mr. Obama is a long way from Wellstone ruled Dec 2012 #13

He's "more like Harry Truman"? You must have a sense of humor. He's the exact opposite of Truman. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #17

Right now, SS is self-funding. However, this will not be the case starting in 2033. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #14

Projections can change, it still has nothing to do with the current deficit Dragonfli Dec 2012 #20

Exactly right reteachinwi Dec 2012 #30

Bingo, spot-on, you've nailed it. hypergrove Dec 2012 #45

Rationalization fail. Logic fail. High probability of administration deception detected. grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #38

All we need do is have those who make over $110,000/yr pay into SS! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #32

Those numbers are based on the worst economy and the high enemployment sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #64

If by self-funding customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #81

The media has spun the demographics to make it appear half the population is not working, thus they freshwest Dec 2012 #15

Obama is not doing this alone. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #16

The appointer of Simpson & Bowles knew exactly where these two right-wingers stood. Their answer indepat Dec 2012 #19

Take the cap off of wage limits on SSI. Not fair that poor and middle class only pay this in. earcandle Dec 2012 #21

or maybe it was used to bribe senators and house? Put it back and audit SSI NOW earcandle Dec 2012 #22

The ruling class sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #24

Same reason he is lowering corporate taxes, and... soryang Dec 2012 #25

President Obama has already taken Social Security off the table UCmeNdc Dec 2012 #26

If you have any proof of that, I would love to see it, unfortunately his latest statement, grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #89

because he knew the radical right would never go for a tax increase. He looks like a goddamn hero pasto76 Dec 2012 #29

How does offering up our SS fund to vultures make him look like a "goddamn hero"? Dragonfli Dec 2012 #33

Wait. You have a link for that? I would love it if he said he took SS off grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #39

It is simple....... rustydad Dec 2012 #34

....and that is why Al Gore wanted a "lock box". NCarolinawoman Dec 2012 #43

well, Gore did win--and they've formally admitted that since *2001* MisterP Apr 2013 #111

Because "deficit" isn't the only thing that matters. Igel Dec 2012 #36

So, you don't want to pay back the money you borrowed from the elderly... grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #41

SS is not under attack and the deficit has nothing to so with SS... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #40

"Odd" That Obama "Throws Out Suggestions" Regarding SS Iggy Dec 2012 #44

That's not how it works... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #54

No, that's wrong. Both sides throw out an entire offer, woo me with science Dec 2012 #90

You state, "SS is not under attack", yet you admit that grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #46

he hasn't stolen fom anyone yet, and... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #52

Of course, but historically Obama has had to be pushed hard to do the right thing. grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #61

Look back at his first two years and say that. TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #65

"can be changed in the future"? NCarolinawoman Dec 2012 #47

We are finished with shadow governments and guns and fake facts. earcandle Dec 2012 #48

Every body knows. earcandle Dec 2012 #49

Quite possibly, when there is a less toxic House... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #51

Because Obama is a Republican. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #50

Oh bullshit. I know the reason: ProSense Dec 2012 #55

. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #56

Ah, ProSense Dec 2012 #57

Advantage: Prosense Number23 Dec 2012 #59

Thank you.... Bobbie Jo Dec 2012 #94

Don't you wish that just once he would pander to the left Doctor_J Dec 2012 #60

Because the banksters who own the government WANT IT Doctor_J Dec 2012 #58

When negotiating, you must offer the other side something they want. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #62

Just say someone wants to buy your car, but, heck, they'd like your house too; grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #67

I don't think it should have ever been offered...but I still understand why he went there. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #72

I read nothing in that article about Obama attacking or cutting Social Security. And he hasn't. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #71

All the red areas comprise cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #75

The CPI is only in Obama's last proposal, which he has withdrawn. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #95

I would very much appreciate a link to the administration stating that chained cpi and grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #96

Bullshit. You declare defeat before anything even happens. MjolnirTime Dec 2012 #77

I had to laugh out loud at your response Oilwellian Dec 2012 #83

What are you talkin about? This is a call to action, asking that we all call grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #85

Don't cut SS, cut corporate welfare! commenter8 Dec 2012 #78

Because this is what the professors are telling him to do Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #88

Bernake is only interested in stuffing our hard earned money into his obesely rich grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #91

Corzine was never prosecuted Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #93

Because SS is unsustainable in its current form- it's going to need some tweaking if people my age cecilfirefox Dec 2012 #97

Then it should be adressed seperately from the the deficit reduction talks. Especially grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #99

Last year Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #101

Wall St. JReed Dec 2012 #103

But Obama magically *knew* his offer(s) wouldn't be accepted! DirkGently Dec 2012 #109