General Discussion

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)

95. It seems interesting that SS is the only creditor they don't HAVE to pay back

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:39 PM

Apr 2013

When our other creditors learn that The treasury bonds sold to the SS trust fund that were backed by the full faith and credit of the US do not have to be paid back, will it help our credit rating? I know these special bonds are not to be traded publicly but they ARE backed by the full faith and credit of the US, since the bonds we sold to China are sharing the same apparently meaningless attribute of "being backed by the full faith and credit of the US" I think we should pay back our trust fund and screw them, since it is optional now to pay back debts to some/any of our creditors.

I mean, if we are going to screw over a creditor why would we choose to screw over our elderly and disabled by robbing their trust fund rather than some other hapless mark that thought our credit was good?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

an ongoing discussion [View all] cthulu2016 Apr 2013 OP

Hayes also pointed out the option of raising the cap. winter is coming Apr 2013 #1

One word: Congress. nt patrice Apr 2013 #6

How many in Congress are Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #83

Its a tax increase on the wealthist Americans. GOP will defend their masters FogerRox Apr 2013 #7

Please explain the 168K. That's from Social Security? Stinky The Clown Apr 2013 #11

Yeah..I didn't get that one.. Lochloosa Apr 2013 #12

Benefits are calculated from income See AIME Formula FogerRox Apr 2013 #106

Yes. Raising the cap is a cash flow measure, not charity. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #13

It would not work that way. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #68

presumably the benefit limits would be changed as part of the move cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #80

I doubt that they would be changed by much. It would defeat the purpose JDPriestly Apr 2013 #81

By current law, if all we do is remove the Cap, we create a 14k monthly check FogerRox Apr 2013 #109

If they can change to chained CPI, they can change the law that would JDPriestly Apr 2013 #116

remove the cap we create a 14k monthly benefit, 168k a year FogerRox Apr 2013 #121

As I said, you could remove the cap and also place a percentage limit JDPriestly Apr 2013 #122

IIRC the last bend point is 5%, cant go much lowerr than that, without being called a means test. FogerRox Apr 2013 #123

JD, your understanding is correct. That is what Senator Sanders explained on avaistheone1 Apr 2013 #126

you 'could' do lots of things. that's not how things work currently, however. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #139

IF we capSS benefits with a means test we just turned SS into a welfare program. FogerRox Apr 2013 #108

SO you bekive the GOP when they say SS is broke in 2033? FogerRox Apr 2013 #107

raising the cap *is* charity, unless you adjust benefits accordingly. the highest earners would HiPointDem Apr 2013 #131

The max SS benefit is computed from your input. Raise the cap, and you raise benefits. FogerRox Apr 2013 #105

There's a cap on benefits. You mean removing the cap on benefits? Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #102

Benefits are not capped, but income is, currently at $113,700. FogerRox Apr 2013 #111

Social Security benefits are capped. There is a max. annual benefit. nt Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #112

Which is created by the income cap FogerRox Apr 2013 #120

You said there is no benefit cap. I pointed out that there is, so that would have to be increased... Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #124

lifting the cap while keeping benefits the same = top earners pay for most of the program & get HiPointDem Apr 2013 #133

Its difficult to discuss this when some dont understand the fundamentals, like AIME etc FogerRox Apr 2013 #137

Legally there is no benefit cap, FogerRox Apr 2013 #136

The cap on taxable earnings is raised nearly every year, and so is the maximum benefit. It's HiPointDem Apr 2013 #132

Somehow ProSense Apr 2013 #2

Nonsense. It is self evidently true. Demo_Chris Apr 2013 #28

You spin so much you confuse me Armstead Apr 2013 #30

Only someone who wants to starve granny to pay for war would be for Obamas plan. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #41

Well...you know there are provisions for the oldest recipients that exempt them. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #103

If u have a kid when your 21, and she has a kid at 21, ur a granny at 42! grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #115

That is that poster's job description. Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #84

I don't believe that's his intention. AverageJoe90 Apr 2013 #71

Its always the same recipe for disaster. Screw the young, screw the old. MichiganVote Apr 2013 #3

"whistling with their hands in the pockets of the elderly" - great line! grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #43

Look at his public education policies and then try to argue with a straight face duffyduff Apr 2013 #49

It's not screw the young. It's to benefit the young. It's only screwing the SS recipients... Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #104

Oh now I've heard it all. So these people pay into a system for decades MichiganVote Apr 2013 #110

You need to learn to read. And don't call me "sugar." That is condescending bigotry. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #125

Axlerod pissed me off to the point Laurian Apr 2013 #4

Me too! And this baby boomer has been paying in to SS Lifelong Protester Apr 2013 #5

They already "fixed it" for the Boomers during the Reagan years. Marr Apr 2013 #16

Exactly. Lifelong Protester Apr 2013 #19

Yup, We've been trailing the Reagan generation of boomers all our lives. MichiganVote Apr 2013 #93

us late boomers Skittles Apr 2013 #96

Your payments went to folks your parent's age. Not right, but a fact. Hoyt Apr 2013 #17

Doubled the tax to pay for both...so boomers paid for parents and pre-paid their own SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #31

That is correct, and that is where the funds in the Social Security Trust Fund came from Samantha Apr 2013 #67

difficult? daybranch Apr 2013 #73

Geitner said exactly that in an interview on cable Samantha Apr 2013 #82

That's very ... interesting. OK, alarming. delrem Apr 2013 #86

Jonathan Alter... delrem Apr 2013 #87

It seems interesting that SS is the only creditor they don't HAVE to pay back Dragonfli Apr 2013 #95

Do you know that the largest holder of US debt is its American citizens -- not China, not Japan Samantha Apr 2013 #113

It sounds more like theft than coincidence, good advice to watch every move. /nt Dragonfli Apr 2013 #114

Bogus BS. bvar22 Apr 2013 #36

Correct. That person doesn't understand the concept 'insurance'. nt delrem Apr 2013 #88

Wrong. Those payments created the SS trust fund. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #45

No. Hoyt. The baby boomers paid extra. Reagan assured us that JDPriestly Apr 2013 #70

Current benefits exceed inflow. I did not say all this is right. Hoyt Apr 2013 #89

We may yet take several trillion dollars out of places like bush's arse. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #97

We could take several trillion dollars out of the offshore bank accounts..... socialist_n_TN Apr 2013 #98

If the President had wanted to reassure me today unrepentant progress Apr 2013 #8

Sigh. THE SKY IS FALLING!! babylonsister Apr 2013 #9

Then why the hell did Obama even bring it up? Armstead Apr 2013 #32

He hates our grannies and loves the hoarding class. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #48

Well at least he didn't offer an increase in the retirement age. neverforget Apr 2013 #58

That would be a tough lift because it is already going to 67 cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #62

But Republicans want 70. Obama should offer 70 so he can neverforget Apr 2013 #65

bullcrap. Whisp Apr 2013 #10

First, Obama is 'selling this crap'... TheProgressive Apr 2013 #14

Your beautiful mind shall remain untroubled. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #15

this so reminds me of when Obama 'cut Medicare'... Whisp Apr 2013 #47

Read his budget. It is in writing. How do you feel about raising the cap? grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #50

Is it a done deal, signed and sealed? n/t Whisp Apr 2013 #51

Its failure will not be due to Obama. He has agreed to it. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #55

and it doesn't mean that you know what the President is thinking either. n/t Whisp Apr 2013 #57

I'm not a mind-reader, but why should I have to be? Why assume everything he says is a lie? cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #59

A lot of what he says is misunderstood, he's not a liar, but nice try. n/t Whisp Apr 2013 #63

He's a professional communicator. I am fluent in English. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #66

1) Yes: "something Actually Happen(ed) in writing", 2) Do we agree raising the cap is better? grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #92

When it's a "done deal, signed and delivered" isn't that a little late.... socialist_n_TN Apr 2013 #99

A lot of DUers were saying that? cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #53

way before the Romney thing. in the hatching of it, not the aftermath. Whisp Apr 2013 #56

Fair enough. A lot of stuff was said during the healthcare debates... cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #60

The media and the GOP? Marr Apr 2013 #27

Think goddamit!!! Corporate Personhood: if DAVID AXELROD said a NEW CONGRESS could raise the cap, patrice Apr 2013 #18

What? We can't take our President or his representatives at their word? Laurian Apr 2013 #21

When the best defense is "It is all lie..." one loses hope and interest. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #23

You know darned well that Presidents aren't kings & CONGRESS WRITES THE LEGISLATION. nt patrice Apr 2013 #33

He is considered the leader of the Democratic Party. Laurian Apr 2013 #37

That is the most lame rationalization ... bvar22 Apr 2013 #40

That should be true. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #75

He took the lead on that in order to pair it with a powerful poison pill, Universal Pre-K, which has patrice Apr 2013 #127

You are right. Most people have no clue. Obama has no clue. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #128

You think he's not using focus groups and poling data like so many other presidents have? patrice Apr 2013 #135

I love it. So the fact that they only offer corporate solutions is proof Marr Apr 2013 #34

We are expected to be the ones on our side, while they do their jobs that happen to include a bunch patrice Apr 2013 #38

So no more "brilliant rope-a-dope", huh? Marr Apr 2013 #54

Just dopes who thought this is a good strategy. neverforget Apr 2013 #61

I don't understand a thing this Patrice is saying. xtraxritical Apr 2013 #69

Try asking a question. nt patrice Apr 2013 #129

Sorry. Patrice. But all I can say is excuses, excuses. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #74

I think we should sent Hekate's thread to him on how to Cleita Apr 2013 #20

Doesn't his actual proposal raise benefits for those most in need? bhikkhu Apr 2013 #22

Myself, I reject turning SS into a welfare program cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #26

Wouldn't raising the cap do the same thing, in principle? bhikkhu Apr 2013 #29

Not conceptually. Raising the cap would lead to some HUGE SS benefit checks down the road cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #35

There is a relationship between how much you put into Social Security JDPriestly Apr 2013 #78

We don't have to monkey with it at all, so why you keep insisting we should is a mystery. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #134

Would conceptualizing it as insurance do that? loyalsister Apr 2013 #76

Those "supplemental payments" are actually just a transfer of JDPriestly Apr 2013 #77

Both sources come from the SS trust fund, originating in FICA payments... bhikkhu Apr 2013 #85

If he wanted to do that, all he had to do was to propose raises in SS. There is enough money, sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #130

There IS something we can do - raise the cap. But I think what Jonathan Alter was saying is that jwirr Apr 2013 #24

(Posted in wrong spot!) Social Security, Obamacare and this summer's debt-limit debate WorseBeforeBetter Apr 2013 #39

Yeah I know about this and its sad because GOPers Iliyah Apr 2013 #79

will not pass in this congress DJ13 Apr 2013 #72

Of course but in the mean time these little fixes can do a lot of damage. jwirr Apr 2013 #91

So don't do ANYTHING now. I swear, WHY....... socialist_n_TN Apr 2013 #100

I think that is what I was saying - that all this conceding little changes is going to hurt SS and jwirr Apr 2013 #119

Becasue top earners get hit hard FogerRox Apr 2013 #138

Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #25

Obama wants to cut Social Security?? He CAN'T be SERIOUS!!!! on point Apr 2013 #42

Yeah, he is. Just like the good neoliberal he truly is. duffyduff Apr 2013 #46

As an old baby boomer ... I hope that Obama isn't serious! In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #90

No he doesn't. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2013 #44

Yep. Rachel said it must be politics, but it IS policy. Obama wants SS cut, period. DirkGently Apr 2013 #52

I didn't like Chris Hayes anyway... ReRe Apr 2013 #64

K&R 99Forever Apr 2013 #94

Bull Shit. elleng Apr 2013 #101

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #117

Axelrod is a moron. That is part of this WH has always concerned me. The man is ignorant, sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #118