General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

109. The Govt had not had to repay the debt to SS because the Fund has

Sun Sep 22, 2013, 11:00 PM

Sep 2013

continued to pay out 100% of its obligations even during this recession.

Too bad the Fed Budget isn't run as efficiently as the SS Program one of the most effective Fiscal Programs ever in this country.

And no, the 'money was NOT all used up'. It has been paying out 100% of its obligations to all those who paid into it without calling in its debt.

You are incorrect.

And the way to ensure it continues to do what it was intended to do is to Raise The Cap, and to focus on jobs.

SS did NOT cause the Deficit and cutting benefits will do NOTHING to lower the Deficit.

What DID cause the Deficit was the Government spending on Wars and on Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and to blame SS for any deficit spending brought on by the Fed Govt's bad financial decisions, is simply ridiculous.

If the Federal Government stopped spending the outrageous amounts of money they spend on the Pentagon Budget they would not have to borrow from the SS Fund, and therefore would not have spend more money on the interest on the bonds among other things.

SS is not to blame for the Fed Govt's decisions regarding how they spend and borrow to cover their spending.

To say that SS WILL contribute to the Deficit IF the Fed Govt ends up having to repay the debt, is like blaming someone who lends you money when you misspend it and have to borrow again to repay the debt, for YOUR financial predicament. The lender is in no way responsible for your eventual financial situation YOU are. The Fed Govt is responsible for the Deficit it created. SS has nothing to do with that.

It is utterly ridiculous.

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