General Discussion

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)

28. At some point government income is going to have to exceed government expenditures..

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:45 AM

Dec 2011

That is if those T Bonds are ever expected to be redeemed..

If America was "investing" in the health, education and general welfare of its people that would be a decent plan, rather the government has been "investing" in tax cuts for the uber-wealthy and bombs for brown foreigners.

I don't see any plausible scenario where government expenditures are going to be less than income.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's try this again: No, Social Security is NOT insolvent. [View all] TheWraith Dec 2011 OP

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