General Discussion

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)

49. You may have to own a tv network in order to spread that truth effectively.

Reply to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Sun Sep 22, 2013, 05:43 PM

Sep 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

214 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Social Security has ZERO to do with the Deficit. [View all] sabrina 1 Sep 2013 OP

+infinity Cleita Sep 2013 #1

Unfortunately it's not just Teabaggers who are attacking SS sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #2

k&r for the truth. n/t Laelth Sep 2013 #3

You are correct with regards to the deficit. MH1 Sep 2013 #4

Well, you are correct in that to keep the fund going and able to pay sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #5

Very true. All projections and dissembly aside, without a healthy economy everything is in trouble bhikkhu Sep 2013 #16

We don't seem to have a problem drawing from the general fund if we want to send missiles into jtuck004 Sep 2013 #22

Is a CLEAR statement defending SS too much to ask from our current Democratic Leadership? bvar22 Sep 2013 #6

It seemed easier to get some clarity on SS during the campaigns. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #10

We should not have to hear one of our own offer any SS cuts. It's disgusting! L0oniX Sep 2013 #50

K&R DeSwiss Sep 2013 #7

Has this president ever made that statement? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #12

Not that I've found either. DeSwiss Sep 2013 #23

Personally, I don't consider DOUBLING the percentage of income paid truebluegreen Sep 2013 #30

I hear ya. DeSwiss Sep 2013 #34

Tweak?? Is that where you wiggle your hips? nm rhett o rick Sep 2013 #124

Even the stupid presidential candidate George W. Bush Enthusiast Sep 2013 #46

I remember that well. I remember Obama objecting to forming a Deficit sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #60

If a company used accounting like this, we would call for their heads joeglow3 Sep 2013 #8

Can you explain? Accounting like what? Sorry, your meaning isn't sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #9

He's refering to Intra-Governmental Tansfers wercal Sep 2013 #18

It's unrelated, except that it's entirely related Recursion Sep 2013 #94

Hey, I'm agreeing with you. wercal Sep 2013 #110

It is not false. If the Fed Govt gets itself into debt, then has to borrow sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #127

Why are you bringing in "fault"? Recursion Sep 2013 #128

It only causes a defict . . . HuskyOffset Sep 2013 #131

Because many here cannot credibly discuss economics and accounting ...... oldhippie Sep 2013 #135

'It'?? What is 'it'?? What raises the Deficit is the Fed Government spending sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #140

All of those increase the deficit Recursion Sep 2013 #141

Yes, they do. But you haven't answered my question. 'What has SS spent sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #142

In a nutshell, nothing yet. dairydog91 Sep 2013 #151

Then the thing to do is to take a few steps, as has happened in the past, sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #156

I'll say - but it's worthless to point out the facts. Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #13

Who is this 'they' you are speaking of? And what are these facts? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #15

SS does add to the deficit, it is part of the government, and so forth Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #27

Excuse me but you are wrong. SS doesn't need Bonds. The only reason sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #31

I'll say it again, I will be stripped of my CPA certificate if I used this accounting joeglow3 Sep 2013 #39

So what you are saying is that Govt Bonds are worthless? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #52

Where does the govt get to money to redeem the bonds? joeglow3 Sep 2013 #55

We know where the Govt gets all of its money. But what does this have sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #62

You are a lost cause joeglow3 Sep 2013 #89

Could you try that again? It must be me I have no clue what you sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #92

So, if a company raided a pension fund and put in IOU's, you would be cool with it? joeglow3 Sep 2013 #96

Now you are making some progress ..... oldhippie Sep 2013 #98

Lol, I never set myself up without a purpose. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #100

You will probably wait for a long time .... oldhippie Sep 2013 #102

I understand perfectly. I understand the attempt to tie SS to the Deficit. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #105

China doesn't care. Igel Sep 2013 #87

Ah, no. That's pure crappola. Your post is defintely ALL WRONG. DeSwiss Sep 2013 #36

We have had this discussion a dozen times .... oldhippie Sep 2013 #28

Yes we have had this discussion a lot. Explain please how sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #29

No. oldhippie Sep 2013 #32

Yo Mama was completely wrong, see my correction of the errors s/he sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #35

Made my point ..... oldhippie Sep 2013 #37

Does that mean you agree with me? I don't see you refuting anything sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #72

No. I'm not wasting my time .... oldhippie Sep 2013 #78

I fail to see how standing up for your pov is ever a waste of time. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #79

And you just changed the subject ...... oldhippie Sep 2013 #82

It's all part of the anti-SS rhetoric we've been dealing with for decades sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #84

And it is very clear that no one ever will .... oldhippie Sep 2013 #86

Well they are always free to try. So far, I have seen nothing to sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #88

And something tells me in your mind no one ever will joeglow3 Sep 2013 #95

Wow. joeglow3 Sep 2013 #40

Yup. Eyes closed, fingers in ears, and singing ...... oldhippie Sep 2013 #44

Try me. juajen Sep 2013 #117

I'm never done defending my positions on issues, unless sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #73

The problem is that you don't have to defend something when faced with a brick wall. Igel Sep 2013 #90

You left out the interest you would be putting in the cookie jar btw. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #101

This is not true. Curmudgeoness Sep 2013 #58

If they raided the pension, spent the money and gave it IOU's joeglow3 Sep 2013 #91

Years ago, I was told that you cannot compare Curmudgeoness Sep 2013 #103

That is bullshit people say as a cop out joeglow3 Sep 2013 #113

Period end of story! Phlem Sep 2013 #11

Obama campaigned on no cuts and raising the cap if necessary. pa28 Sep 2013 #14

He could start by not ever again mentioning SS in the same sentence sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #21

People forget that employers pay into in too. Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2013 #17

No, they don't forget that. Many of us here who ever ran a small sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #19

People who have been employees their whole life never see that. Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2013 #26

I don't see where that is relevant really. There is a lot the general sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #33

Republicans used to talk about "shoreing up the Social Security Trust Fund" but now,... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2013 #45

Good points. I hadn't thought of it that way. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #115

DUrec. n/t PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #20

The motives are pretty clear, don't you think? There exists no good reason to implement Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #24

Yes, to many people the motives are pretty clear. And it's a shame to see sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #138

Yes, it's been a propaganda war for a long time, and we should all be vigilant Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #139

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #25

K&R. Thank you. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #38

This needs to be in every letters to the editors page in every newspaper Half-Century Man Sep 2013 #41

Both sides and all the think tanks insist that Social Security is driving the deficit. Enthusiast Sep 2013 #42

If I'm owed a million dollars, but my bank acct is empty, I'm still broke 7962 Sep 2013 #43

Sticking to the Republican position on this are you? Enthusiast Sep 2013 #47

True. Fortunately the SS Fund has no fear of that happening sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #48

Congress spends the SS money and replaces it with T-bills from the treasury. Loaning money to itself 7962 Sep 2013 #61

Well our other creditors like China, Japan et al don't seem to have any sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #67

You cant buy groceries with IOUs. bvar22 Sep 2013 #54

A grocery store will take a dollar bill, not a note from my debtor 7962 Sep 2013 #56

My grocery store will CASH my Social Security check, bvar22 Sep 2013 #213

Keep laughing. Nothing I've said is "anti-Social Security", and neither am I. 7962 Sep 2013 #214

Stop it! Curmudgeoness Sep 2013 #57

Stop what? Is it not the truth that the govt borrows from SS? Is that a lie? 7962 Sep 2013 #64

Treasury bonds are not going to be reneged on. Curmudgeoness Sep 2013 #69

Its STILL tax money to be repaid at a much later date 7962 Sep 2013 #74

They're not T bills. Igel Sep 2013 #93

I cannot believe this debate is happening on DU. Curmudgeoness Sep 2013 #104

Why? I dont see how this is "right wing" at all. The money isnt there. Its NOT THERE. 7962 Sep 2013 #123

Wtf do you mean 'the money isn't there?' Do you know anything at all about the SS Fund? All of sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #162

I did say raise the cap. But the surplus is not in the fund as it should be; its BONDS 7962 Sep 2013 #165

Who is to blame for the Govt having to pay off its debts, to SS, to China and everyone else it has sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #168

If you want to place blame, thats a whole different thread! Plenty to go around. 7962 Sep 2013 #179

It's amazing, isn't it? I don't EVER recall having to defend these Heritage Foundation memes sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #171

It saddens me. Curmudgeoness Sep 2013 #182

You fucking well can if you are a government with the sole power of issuing currency n/t eridani Sep 2013 #76

Simply printing money will be counter productive and cause a massive devaluation of the dollar mythology Sep 2013 #129

Yeah, right. Just like the quantitative easements resulted in runaway inflation eridani Sep 2013 #144

Shit, then lets just print a billion dollars for every citizen joeglow3 Sep 2013 #149

You'd be surprised at how many people think that would work 7962 Sep 2013 #166

You believe that because you are owed money, the guy that owes you is exempt from paying Dragonfli Sep 2013 #112

Of course not. But I cant pay bills today with a promise to pay in the future from another source. 7962 Sep 2013 #132

I think I understand you, but believe you have been a bit misinformed by the barrage of planned and Dragonfli Sep 2013 #145

I'll have to google Pete Peterson, I don't know who he is. 7962 Sep 2013 #152

I guess you don't get it, but I tried really hard to explain it, nothing was spent on something else Dragonfli Sep 2013 #155

Excellent post, Dragonfli. This is EXACTLY what they are trying to sell to the sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #157

And how is that in any way relevant to the SS Fund? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #161

You may have to own a tv network in order to spread that truth effectively. L0oniX Sep 2013 #49

Nice! nt adirondacker Sep 2013 #59

Not SS, but the loss of income tax revenue due to outsourcing of jobs increases the deficit. AdHocSolver Sep 2013 #51

There is no money in the "trust fund". Every penny has already been spent on other things. Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #53

Isn't it odd how this issue has come to the forefront over the last few years? Fumesucker Sep 2013 #63

I'm glad you're saying it, since youve got a heckuva lot more posts than I do. 7962 Sep 2013 #65

Funny how much interest on those 'non-marketable bonds' sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #66

"As for how the Govt can repay its debt to SS" is the key sentence in your reply. Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #106

The Govt had not had to repay the debt to SS because the Fund has sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #109

To clarify, the SS taxes that people pay are used to pay benefits to current recipients, Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #111

And the way to do that is to make sure we are not outsourcing sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #114

Now if you can just get those who are giving ME hell to understand that. 7962 Sep 2013 #133

You need a fairly thick skin to go against the "DU line" on issues such as Social Security. Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #137

+10000!! 7962 Sep 2013 #143

Really? Can you explain why asking for the rich to pay their fair share sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #158

Those are two different issues joeglow3 Sep 2013 #169

Where are those facts? I've been up and down this thread unlike some btw, responding to sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #170

Your view is flawed as it is stuck in theory and not reality joeglow3 Sep 2013 #172

More fuzzy numbers. Answer one question. When has SS needed to cash in any of its bonds? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #173

SS's unfunded liability is over $20 trillion. joeglow3 Sep 2013 #175

So much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #176

You are a lost cause joeglow3 Sep 2013 #177

Then you have no answer to my questions! I CAN answer them for you if you like? n/t sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #178

You claim a fictitious "source of income" as proof joeglow3 Sep 2013 #180

You would lose your license if you advised the Fed Govt to borrow money to pay for sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #183

Two things lobbed at you that should be swatted down. PETRUS Sep 2013 #184

Exactly, thank you for pointing this out. I know that is BS, so does every rational person with just sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #185

You might want to look up that GDP number your self joeglow3 Sep 2013 #187

You bet! PETRUS Sep 2013 #203

What do you think our GDP is? joeglow3 Sep 2013 #186

Apples to apples PETRUS Sep 2013 #189

Even if that is you basis, you are waaaay off joeglow3 Sep 2013 #192

You are wrong again. PETRUS Sep 2013 #194

No, YOU are wrong joeglow3 Sep 2013 #195

Ooo, jargon! PETRUS Sep 2013 #197

Ohhh, now YOU are busting out the tried and true tactic of calling someone right wing joeglow3 Sep 2013 #198

I did no such thing. That's your inference. PETRUS Sep 2013 #199

As a 15 year CPA, it is based on accounting principles joeglow3 Sep 2013 #200

Your appeal to authority is not very compelling Cal Carpenter Sep 2013 #201

I have explained it multiple times in this thread joeglow3 Sep 2013 #204

Musta missed it Cal Carpenter Sep 2013 #208

What "type of accounting?" PETRUS Sep 2013 #202

I am a CPA joeglow3 Sep 2013 #205

That is not an answer to my question. Reread and try again. nt PETRUS Sep 2013 #207

That is the same defense mechanism my 5 year old uses joeglow3 Sep 2013 #188

I'm still not seeing any answers to my question but that is your choice. SS still has nothing to do sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #190

And you seem to miss why they haven't "cashed" any in joeglow3 Sep 2013 #191

Well, now we're getting somewhere. 'The reality is that the government doesn't have the cash sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #193

That is what I said in one of my first posts....and it is irrelevant joeglow3 Sep 2013 #196

So, your solution to this mess created by the Fed Govt is to make the LENDERS pay for the debts sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #209

So your solution to this mess is to say fuck our kids and grand kids joeglow3 Sep 2013 #210

Sure, that's what I've been saying when asking to protect future generations from the theft sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #211

Where did I say that was the solution? joeglow3 Sep 2013 #212

Because this cannot be said often enough... me b zola Sep 2013 #68

Thanks, I agree! sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #70

Even if SS was a part of the Federal budget, Maedhros Sep 2013 #71

it's not empty--it's full and they want to bleed it dry yurbud Sep 2013 #75

They want to privatize it and gamble it away on Wall St. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #77

Washington seems to run on two rules: first, do no harm (to the wealthy) and second the only reforms yurbud Sep 2013 #80

SS is a political club DustyJoe Sep 2013 #81

Interesting. I missed that last time. And would agree it was being sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #83

Thanks for bringing this up again Sabrina. K&R! nt adirondacker Sep 2013 #85

You're still mixing up deficit and debt. All cash flow whatsoever affects the deficit Recursion Sep 2013 #97

You are correct. Kaleva Sep 2013 #99

If when FDR had set up Social Security, he had specified that the Trust Fund be invested in gold, Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #107

The lock box was Gore's worst idea, and the name makes no sense Recursion Sep 2013 #108

Well, I was sure wrong on what I thought he meant! 7962 Sep 2013 #134

All cash flow? pa28 Sep 2013 #116

They're hardly worthless. They're worth 2.5 trillion Recursion Sep 2013 #118

Agreed. I've heard that argument used here and I'm glad you aren't joining in. pa28 Sep 2013 #119

Easing raises interest rates Recursion Sep 2013 #120

Yes, according to the pre-zero bound theories you learned in one level economics. pa28 Sep 2013 #121

Let me be clear, that is not my theory. I'm specifically agnostic on easing. Recursion Sep 2013 #122

No I am not mixing up 'debt' and 'deficit'. I am saying that the lie being told that SS is in any sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #163

So, you agree, SS does increase the annual deficit? Recursion Sep 2013 #164

The Fed Govt is responsible for the Deficit. What is so hard for you to understand about that? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #167

True, but as Obama's former chief of staff said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #125

K&R nt raouldukelives Sep 2013 #126

DURec leftstreet Sep 2013 #130

That is a true statement...... BlueJac Sep 2013 #136

This thread is hilarious... SomethingFishy Sep 2013 #146

You got it right. The convoluted attempts to try to tie SS to the sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #147

How can a portion of government spending "not be part of the deficit"? dairydog91 Sep 2013 #150

That's correct. Conversely, when SS revenue exceeds SS payouts the effect is to reduce the deficit. PoliticAverse Sep 2013 #153

What portion of SS has come from the Fed Govt, how does a fund that has sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #159

The attempts to cut SS have nothing to do with the deficit, either. Orsino Sep 2013 #148

k & R! n/t wildbilln864 Sep 2013 #154

apparently a few posters disagree with this premise steve2470 Sep 2013 #160

President Johnson One_Life_To_Give Sep 2013 #174

Happy to keep this kicked to the top n/t Oilwellian Sep 2013 #181

Recommend! Amazing how we still see this SS=DEFICIT CRAP KoKo Sep 2013 #206