General Discussion

TrollBuster9090

(6,129 posts)

27. We know, of course, what THEY think the answer to that question is.

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:14 PM

Dec 2012

Q: Why should the money we borrowed from regular bond holders be taken more seriously than the money we LITERALLY borrowed from our own Senior Citizens?

A: Because Bond Holders are 'politically important' (and have political clout), and senior citizens trying to avoid having to eat cat food in their twilight years are not. Maybe they had political clout 30 years ago, when there were a lot more of them, and represented a sizable voting block, but not anymore. If a few seniors are forced to eat cat food instead of hamburger, it's not going to crash the stock market, or cause China to rip up trade agreements, or Japan to block U.S. car imports, or cause plutocrats in Dubai to switch to German Bonds from U.S. Bonds etc.

So screw them. We can write off the debt we owe to them, and hardly anybody will notice. And politics is all about what people NOTICE is happening, not what's actually happening.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Social Security Trust Fund has not been 'looted'. [View all] HiPointDem Dec 2012 OP

Not until Turbineguy Dec 2012 #1

exactly, which is why forbes is going around telling you the looting has already taken place. it HiPointDem Dec 2012 #2

Exactly! It hasn't been "looted" YET. But it WILL be if we allow there dingleberries to continue TrollBuster9090 Dec 2012 #23

"This is the idea we have to prevent from taking root." = yes. i've already seen these ideas being HiPointDem Dec 2012 #25

They' ve put in the hands of Wall St. and the Banksters. Exactly. nt DCKit Dec 2012 #53

And Forbes said today on CSPAN they MUST QUIT operating this way! Won't work no more... SugarShack Dec 2012 #3

oh, is that what he said? my OP is confirmed, then. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #6

Absolutely correct...They WANT to make permanent the subsidizing of income taxes with payroll... Faryn Balyncd Dec 2012 #4

K&R. Well said. Overseas Dec 2012 #5

Best summary yet. Spread this far and wide people. n/t pa28 Dec 2012 #7

It always surprises me that even democrats still buy this old lie. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #8

yes, funny how so many democrats buy it. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #9

China and the other creditors customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #11

Hi customerserviceguy sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #13

Hello, sabrina! customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #22

your hero al, he of the 'lockbox,' was there for the 1983 vote which raised SS taxes significantly HiPointDem Dec 2012 #26

Well, he's not my hero customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #31

"can only be sustained by ever-growing generations..."? bhikkhu Dec 2012 #33

Wherever did you come up with that productivity figure? customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #83

Ok, here's 1947-2010 bhikkhu Dec 2012 #88

And if as much of our economy were in manufacturing as it was in 1950 customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #92

Manufacturing continues to be one of our very strong points bhikkhu Dec 2012 #98

of course i know birthrates dropped after the 60s, but it's irrelevant, and here's why: HiPointDem Dec 2012 #37

And where have those supposed productivity gains been going? customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #84

it's not a pyramid scheme either. you are trying to claim that the 'fraud' lies with the structure HiPointDem Dec 2012 #89

You still haven't answered my question customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #91

They're going to capital, as opposed to labor. Your solution is no solution, for the same HiPointDem Dec 2012 #105

My solution is solid reform customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #109

Would Al Gore's vote against the measure have made any difference? JDPriestly Dec 2012 #54

no, because most dems already voted for it. but about 20% of house dems & 30% of senate HiPointDem Dec 2012 #63

Bills pass or fail based on the number of "yea" votes. Abstentions have the effect of "nay" votes. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #64

We can change course. A lot of them are still around and they need to get out sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #51

Two problems with that customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #85

Those "pieces of paper" sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #75

So, can I put you down as being in favor customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #86

You can see me sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #97

There is no serious disagreement on this issue among progressives. ronnie624 Dec 2012 #76

Why was the trust fund issued non-negotiable securities customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #10

SS is not crumbling, far from it. It is the Fed Govt that crumbled, that spent sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #14

Yes, we've had this discussion before customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #19

We don't need to do anything. allrevvedup Dec 2012 #71

I agree that we won't customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #90

Oh please. allrevvedup Dec 2012 #103

um, because there's no need or intention of trading them? HiPointDem Dec 2012 #17

There are a hierarchy of securities customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #21

funny that they've always paid them back then & continue to pay them back on a regular basis HiPointDem Dec 2012 #28

Yes, and the refinance boom kept going and going, too customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #32

the mortgage bubble was fraud. it has nothing to do with social security. the demographics HiPointDem Dec 2012 #40

All bubbles are caused by greed customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #93

did the refinance boom keep going for 70 years, btw? HiPointDem Dec 2012 #61

No, but the housing bubble did customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #94

You seem not to understand what a bubble is. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #106

To me, a bubble is any increase customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #108

there is no your definition & my definition. there's *the* definition. buying houses to house the HiPointDem Jan 2013 #111

Ah, so you think my definition of the baby boom generation customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #112

inflation-adjusted housing prices were basically flat 50's-90's, and basically flat from the turn of HiPointDem Jan 2013 #113

Your phrase "inflation-adjusted housing prices" is the weak link here customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #114

prove it HiPointDem Jan 2013 #115

Thanks for the good discussion. Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #59

you're welcome. who's winning? HiPointDem Dec 2012 #60

Not sure, but some customer service guy in Bangalore allrevvedup Dec 2012 #70

I'm in New York customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #95

So what does any bank have? Gold? Silver? allrevvedup Dec 2012 #102

True enough customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #110

But income isn't rising, There's the rub. nt Flatulo Dec 2012 #67

yes. that's the real problem. but i'd add that the ptb only want the solution that involves HiPointDem Dec 2012 #78

Thanks for taking so much time to post all this great info. I'm on SSDI now due Flatulo Dec 2012 #82

Thanks for thanking me. Please talk to your friends and family about these issues. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #107

Not all of us have falling incomes. CEO pay has risen dramatically. suffragette Dec 2012 #87

The Constitution requires our government to pay back debt. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #55

It should go into the SS Fund, draw interest & be left the hell alone!! shintao Dec 2012 #12

Bookkeeping 101. The balance sheet shows a positive balance of $2.7 trillion in the SS column. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #15

If they think it's been "looted", who did it? tonybgood Dec 2012 #16

yeah, people like forbes never tell you who 'looted' it. just that some nefarious but unnamed HiPointDem Dec 2012 #18

Yes, that's exactly why Grandpa Simpson gets so testy at the 2:20 minute mark of this video... TrollBuster9090 Dec 2012 #20

Why the hell should the money we borrowed from regular bond holders be taken more seriously than the abelenkpe Dec 2012 #24

We know, of course, what THEY think the answer to that question is. TrollBuster9090 Dec 2012 #27

I personally think that some of the people behind the 1983 Social security amendments, allan HiPointDem Dec 2012 #29

Yep, it's in the same vein as the Norquist style "Starve the beast" ideas for destroying government. TrollBuster9090 Dec 2012 #50

+1 HiPointDem Dec 2012 #62

The original assertion by steve forbes? Gee, THAT guy doesn't have an agenda or anything... calimary Dec 2012 #30

Pay it back with what? This Govt is broke broke broke. dkf Dec 2012 #34

Pay it back by confiscating the wealth of the 400 richest...... socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #38

leave it to you. how are we paying for war on 5 continents, then, green stamps? is congress HiPointDem Dec 2012 #42

Wow are you not aware have reached our debt limit again? dkf Dec 2012 #47

i presume we'll be cutting off the military contractors & bringing the troops home any day, then. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #57

Our government is broke - really? TheProgressive Dec 2012 #43

Sorry to disagree but WE ARE NOT BROKE!!! tonybgood Dec 2012 #72

Eliminate the caps. Conium Dec 2012 #35

"become"? it's always been regressive in one aspect and progressive in another. eliminating the HiPointDem Dec 2012 #41

How is 'removing the cap=turning it into welfare'? TheProgressive Dec 2012 #44

because of the way income is structured. you've heard the stories about how the rich pay HiPointDem Dec 2012 #45

The Republican talking point that the rich pay most of the taxes... TheProgressive Dec 2012 #48

that's the way income is structured. and that's why the original SS legislation made the pay-in HiPointDem Dec 2012 #58

The cap has been raised before newfie11 Dec 2012 #66

The cap is raised nearly every year. The poster wasn't talking about raising the cap, but HiPointDem Dec 2012 #77

They can do what they want to do if the people's biggest response is plethoro Dec 2012 #36

+1 HiPointDem Dec 2012 #46

That's it in a nutshell Trailrider1951 Dec 2012 #39

Precisely. But I still say that when Bush gave his super-tax-cuts to the super-rich and waged JDPriestly Dec 2012 #49

i agree that the SS surplus helped make those cuts politically viable. & yeah, i agree that's why HiPointDem Dec 2012 #56

Meh lrellok Dec 2012 #52

yes. too bad so many people believe it's real. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #65

The claim about the looting of Social Security Trust fund is an excuse to justify privatizing Social Gothmog Dec 2012 #68

A lot of people bought into that lie. ProSense Dec 2012 #69

No, it's not that "Rich people and corporations don't want to repay it." JayhawkSD Dec 2012 #73

And the Truth Shall Set You Free Left Turn Only Dec 2012 #74

yet klyon Dec 2012 #79

According to.... murphyj87 Dec 2012 #80

...not quite. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #81

Who do you believe? murphyj87 Dec 2012 #100

I believe the link I posted on the funding of OAS, which was not wikipedia. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #101

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, proletariat motherfuckers... MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #96

Interesting use of the word "loot" Oilwellian Dec 2012 #99

Big K&R. I wish I could commit this entire thread to memory. Great points made in support of the OP. Dark n Stormy Knight Dec 2012 #104