Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wiggs

(7,788 posts)
6. you are correct. Plus, where some of this meme came from was when FICA revenues fell short of
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 04:12 PM
Dec 2011

outlays last year....SS wasn't taking in as much as it was putting out. This was foreseen a long time ago, of course, but that didn't stop many from deceiving others about the state of SS.

What doesn't get enough mention is that SS planners in the 80's could not have foreseen that middle and lower income wages would become stagnant and that most of the income growth over the last 30 years would go to the upper 10%, where income is not taxed for SS past 106,000.

It would have been helpful if the President hadn't idiotically made deficit hysteria.. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #1
Count on DU to have someone try to turn anything into a smear on Obama. TheWraith Dec 2011 #3
it only took one post for a lame anti-obama smear to show up. ahh.. DU... dionysus Dec 2011 #10
Who would trust the administration to protect Social Security at this point? girl gone mad Dec 2011 #20
Yes, the meme of the imaginary Social Security cuts returns. TheWraith Dec 2011 #25
What you've written is outside of my point. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #27
No one has argued that? There have been DOZENS of assertions of that just on DU. TheWraith Dec 2011 #36
... elleng Dec 2011 #5
k&r rhett o rick Dec 2011 #2
Thank you. It really irked me that every Republican presidential candidate said "we all know ... Scuba Dec 2011 #4
For being so relatively simple, a LOT of people don't understand it. TheWraith Dec 2011 #11
you are correct. Plus, where some of this meme came from was when FICA revenues fell short of wiggs Dec 2011 #6
Good fact PATRICK Dec 2011 #8
Bingo. Going into red ink is the entire point of the Trust Fund. TheWraith Dec 2011 #9
Thanks, Wraith! elleng Dec 2011 #7
Glad I could help your mood. :) nt TheWraith Dec 2011 #12
Where is the money kept for the trust fund? Snake Alchemist Dec 2011 #13
Well, THAT should stop Republican demagoguery and fear-mongering on the subject gratuitous Dec 2011 #14
There is no "shorter full benefits horizon." TheWraith Dec 2011 #15
Define "insolvent" econoclast Dec 2011 #16
Spot on analysis exboyfil Dec 2011 #18
Nice..... sendero Dec 2011 #19
Our reserve currency status is not very important in the scheme of things. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #22
I disagree.. sendero Dec 2011 #33
The US doesn't borrow. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #21
By that definition, there is no such thing as solvency for Social Security. TheWraith Dec 2011 #35
Some Investment lacrew Dec 2011 #17
Try fact-checking yourself. You just come off as knowing nothing. TheWraith Dec 2011 #26
EXACTLY!!! It pure GOP bull shit JUST like the GOP under the Bush administration put the USPS Justice wanted Dec 2011 #23
Two words: unified budget joshcryer Dec 2011 #24
At some point government income is going to have to exceed government expenditures.. Fumesucker Dec 2011 #28
Investing the social security trust fund in government securities was a stupid move Taitertots Dec 2011 #29
Your plan has to assume that income taxes on the rich could have been raised instead muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #31
Why couldn't they increase the tax rate for the rich? Taitertots Dec 2011 #32
Perhaps it should muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #34
I don't buy into the counter productive framing imposed on the situation Taitertots Dec 2011 #38
Sorry, but that's a big load of Republican talking points. TheWraith Dec 2011 #37
The money was taken from the workers to support huge tax decreases on the wealthy Taitertots Dec 2011 #39
Yes, it's got a trust fund Yo_Mama Dec 2011 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Let's try this again: No,...»Reply #6