General Discussion

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)

84. How? It does not claim it is part of the budget and says nothing to disagree with me

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 08:10 PM

Apr 2013

SS can not be funded out of General Revenue BY LAW
They did not change the law with those assumptions (that's all they are, extremely pessimistic assumptions)

It is a projection that assumes some really serious problems due to an accelerated increase of medical costs (the price of letting Drug companies, hospitals and Insurance companies set the price and encouraging them to rob us blind).

Changes do likely need to be made to slow the feeding frenzy encouraged by the last two administrations. How soon depends on more than pessimism and worse case scenario projections.

If changes aren't made and we don't rewrite laws written by lobbyists then eventually, disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and payroll taxpayers(FICA) will be the price.

You do realize that is a 75 year projection period right? You also realize that "The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures" refers to how much of the trust fund's surplus must be used beyond money earned by interest on it's bond investments of course? You must also realize the money (non interest or otherwise) projected to be paid IS STILL NOT A PART OF THE GENERAL BUDGET BUT ALL PART OF A PROGRAM FUNDING ITSELF.

You haven't given me anything new regarding the Republican lie, just your own slick misrepresentation of the most recent and most pessimistic projections the Republican think tanks can get their hands on.

Your schtick is old, Republicans have used that same crap for twenty years, they assured me by the same misrepresentation techniques at several different times that the entire fund would be gone over ten years ago and SS would be long dead by now.

The only thing new is the lies and misrepresentations are coming from alleged Democrats as well as Republican in this thread.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For anyone who doesn't believe entitlements + interest on the debt will crowd out all other spending [View all] dkf Apr 2013 OP

The chart does not support your conclusions unblock Apr 2013 #1

If you take the POV that entitlements are inviolate then everything else gets cut first. dkf Apr 2013 #2

Only a few extra percent of GDP in revenue would make a big difference unblock Apr 2013 #5

No, if you decreased defense and non entitlement spending, you'd have a primary surplus muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #23

If you collapsed both of those things now then maybe so. dkf Apr 2013 #30

The 'reasonable' bit is in my 2nd paragraph muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #34

Clinton raised taxes on the top earners by about 3%.... Wounded Bear Apr 2013 #36

Obama raised taxes on the top earners above Clinton rates. dkf Apr 2013 #46

In the OECD, only Mexico and Chile collect a lower percent of GDP in taxes than us. dawg Apr 2013 #40

I think the point is that entitlement spending is set by formula Recursion Apr 2013 #3

But revenues aren't etched in stone. unblock Apr 2013 #6

SS is self funded and doesn't cost the Fed Gov anything, Nor did it have anything to do with the sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #8

No matter how many times that myth gets repeated, lowering SS payments would decrease the deficit Recursion Apr 2013 #13

obviously cutting any expense will temporarily decrease the deficit magical thyme Apr 2013 #17

I'm all for dropping the full SS age to 55, at least until unemployment drops below X% Recursion Apr 2013 #18

well many of us are, because it's the 1st step to cutting for all magical thyme Apr 2013 #33

It is not an expense that is part of the budget, you are being lied to Dragonfli Apr 2013 #63

I realize they're trying to rob Peter to pay Paul's debts magical thyme Apr 2013 #68

fair enough! Dragonfli Apr 2013 #72

No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it is still a lie Dragonfli Apr 2013 #62

Apparently the Social Security trustees are liars. former9thward Apr 2013 #83

How? It does not claim it is part of the budget and says nothing to disagree with me Dragonfli Apr 2013 #84

So you are stating the SS trustees are part of the "Republican lie". former9thward Apr 2013 #85

No, just your misrepresentation of one of their projections, try reading the post Dragonfli Apr 2013 #86

No, that's still a strawman of your imagination Recursion Apr 2013 #89

Repeating a lie multiple times does not make it true, the treasury handles their money, so what? Dragonfli Apr 2013 #91

SS can not be funded out of General Revenue BY LAW. The myth is that SS has anything Vincardog Apr 2013 #80

Repeating that still doesn't make it true. Recursion Apr 2013 #90

Repeating lies does not make them facts. Quit it. Vincardog Apr 2013 #92

"So, where does the money come from", would be the next question bhikkhu Apr 2013 #59

The money comes from the trust fund's surplus when payments out exceed FICA in Dragonfli Apr 2013 #65

The point is, the surplus isn't held in cash, its held in US treasury bonds bhikkhu Apr 2013 #70

So the lie remains the same, not redeeming bonds= income Dragonfli Apr 2013 #71

Its about cash flow bhikkhu Apr 2013 #74

It's a lie. The SS trust fund is not "one area of the budget", you are talking about Dragonfli Apr 2013 #75

That's quite a ridiculous thing to say muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #19

We can set future entitlement spending, not future discretionary spending Recursion Apr 2013 #20

So is your concept of government that you can't trust future congresses? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #25

It's not about trust, it's about what decisions are binding Recursion Apr 2013 #35

Spooky chart of speculations! Rex Apr 2013 #4

You don't account for revenue Lasher Apr 2013 #7

+1 HiPointDem Apr 2013 #9

Not taking sides, but your closing comment is not quite correct ... DreamGypsy Apr 2013 #41

That is easy to see, as I intended. Lasher Apr 2013 #49

I am not disputing the fact that the MyGovCost website is spinning data to support its purposes... DreamGypsy Apr 2013 #57

Social Security is paid for with the payroll tax, that should not be included. AnnieK401 Apr 2013 #10

But why do you break it out that way? freedom fighter jh Apr 2013 #11

Well you can only decrease interest payments by reducing the deficit and the debt. dkf Apr 2013 #32

Social security payments do not contribute to the deficit and the debt. freedom fighter jh Apr 2013 #39

You can reduce interest payments by keeping interest really low = bad economy Coyotl Apr 2013 #44

Ever hear of ... GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #56

Why not pass the JObs Act that Obama proposed to get that tax revenue rolling in again? CTyankee Apr 2013 #12

History has shown it is rare to grow out of debt. dkf Apr 2013 #66

I've been reading Krugman since he started his NYT column over 10 years ago. He has CTyankee Apr 2013 #73

Makes a great case for a highly progressive tax rate ... Scuba Apr 2013 #14

They are two different things Cosmocat Apr 2013 #15

we definitely need Unrec back. magical thyme Apr 2013 #16

Here we go again. hobbit709 Apr 2013 #21

I sincerely don't get your angle. trumad Apr 2013 #22

This contradicts the post you put up yesterday that shows interest isn't a major factor. leveymg Apr 2013 #24

Well he uses information from RWing sources, proudly Rex Apr 2013 #60

Oh, just come out and say you think Social Security should be done away with, and get it over with. djean111 Apr 2013 #26

Social Security is not a government expense. Laelth Apr 2013 #27

Repeal the full Bush tax cuts. Thank we can begin this conversation Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #28

We aren't talking about cutting economic safety net programs for all of us Recursion Apr 2013 #37

Umm, Cost of Living Increases are designed so that benefits can be paid in constant dollars Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #43

"Constant dollars" is not an objective thing, though Recursion Apr 2013 #48

Yes he has, and the near unamimous concensus of independent economic experts is Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #52

Seniors today certainly have a higher standard of living than seniors 10, 20, or 30 years ago Recursion Apr 2013 #54

I don't accept that. Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #55

The richest 4/5 is a new silly season word game. TheKentuckian Apr 2013 #69

Republican tripe. 99Forever Apr 2013 #29

They are also spreading the Republican lie that SS is part of the budget Dragonfli Apr 2013 #79

Especially... 99Forever Apr 2013 #81

For anyone who doesn't believe that tax fraud and offshore banking, along with defense and .. ananda Apr 2013 #31

It would seem that it is all interest from looking at that chart. dawg Apr 2013 #38

Don't forget that thr Social Security spending assumes the big benefit cut which will occur bornskeptic Apr 2013 #77

Still, it isn't a picture of spending out of control. dawg Apr 2013 #82

If Social Security is the largest creditor, Downwinder Apr 2013 #42

Tax collections at 25% of GDP would cover everything, even in 2080. dawg Apr 2013 #45

Gee dawg, your chart makes it look like our low tax philosophy is the entirety of our problem. dawg Apr 2013 #47

Indeed, dawg. But going even beyond our unwillingness to pay adequate taxes ... dawg Apr 2013 #50

Right on, dawg! dawg Apr 2013 #51

I agree with all of the dawgs! Dragonfli Apr 2013 #76

Projections.... not so much MattBaggins Apr 2013 #53

We're borrowing at almost zero percent interest. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #58

OK, but isn't about 2/3 of that interest payable to the Social Security Administration? 1-Old-Man Apr 2013 #61

I believe you missed the gorilla in the room, like most usGovOwesUs3Trillion Apr 2013 #64

-1 ...and I miss the unrec button. L0oniX Apr 2013 #67

The same clowns who once assured us all that Obama would never ever Marr Apr 2013 #78

If I want to read RW ignorance there are plenty of other sites I can peruse. Doremus Apr 2013 #87

Seniors are not at fault for this situation. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #88