|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
yurbud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 01:56 PM Original message |
Poll question: When Congress set up Soc. Sec. trust fund, did they INTEND not to repay what they borrowed from it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 01:58 PM Response to Original message |
1. It wasn't a scam. They must pay it back, or it's a default on U.S. Bonds. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:08 PM Response to Reply #1 |
6. if it wasn't a scam, why did they jack up fica to produce big surpluses that could be borrowed in |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:12 PM Response to Reply #6 |
14. B/c in '83 they had an emergency where they couldn't pay benefits in two months |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:36 PM Response to Reply #14 |
26. the only fix required was a slight increase in fica, something which had been done before. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
reformist2 (998 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:01 PM Response to Original message |
2. They don't plan on getting rid of SS. But they want to reduce benefits so that it never runs a defic |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yurbud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:11 PM Response to Reply #2 |
11. if it ran a deficit, it would just dip into that built up surplus, which is supposed to last to 2037 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:38 PM Response to Reply #11 |
28. "dipping into the surplus" = charging the general fund. that is not the way social security |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:30 PM Response to Reply #28 |
47. Right, 'Dipping into the Surplus' means presenting the securities in the trust fund for payment... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:34 PM Response to Reply #47 |
48. It has a way, which is not accumulating the surpluses in the first place. which is how it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
reformist2 (998 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:56 PM Response to Reply #47 |
52. They were fine with SS as long as it was a cash cow revenue generator. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shanti (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:03 PM Response to Original message |
3. *ushco |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ruby the Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:10 PM Response to Reply #3 |
10. Reagan was the one who first raided that fund. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shanti (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:29 PM Response to Reply #10 |
23. yep |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dkf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:04 PM Response to Original message |
4. Moynihan intended to, Reagan and Bush spent it instead. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:04 PM Response to Original message |
5. Yes. The law is clear. All excess social security collections go into the trust fund, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yurbud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:11 PM Response to Reply #5 |
12. so the boomer bubble was a hoax? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:15 PM Response to Reply #12 |
18. not seeing your point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yurbud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:17 PM Response to Reply #5 |
20. you said there was no reason to build up the trust fund, implying we could still pay as we go |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:42 PM Response to Reply #20 |
30. which we can. and are going to. collecting extra for 30 years (from not only |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 03:52 PM Response to Reply #5 |
40. Indeed. Social Security is a 'pay as you go' program and the current trust fund doesn't change that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:08 PM Response to Original message |
7. They thought they could just keep kicking the can down the road |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ruby the Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:09 PM Response to Original message |
8. "Paid for it to be there". Congress is too short sighted with their #1 priority in getting reelecte |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kirby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:09 PM Response to Original message |
9. They did not account for the demographic changes... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:12 PM Response to Reply #9 |
13. of course they did. the same 1983 amendments that started bloating up the trust fund |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:13 PM Response to Reply #13 |
16. Yes. Talk to people on the Greenspan commission. The baby boom was planned for. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kirby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:15 PM Response to Reply #16 |
19. It was not fully addressed... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:28 PM Response to Reply #19 |
22. Sure it was. They only plan out SS on 75 year plans. They will address the future |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:49 PM Response to Reply #19 |
32. The trust fund is NOT social security & has nothing to do with the ability to pay benefits. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtown1123 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:54 PM Response to Reply #32 |
34. Check your history. SS was in dire straights in 83. I know pple who participated |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 03:05 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. I know my history, thanks. The situation in 83 was not "dire". It was the predictable result of |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kirby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 03:52 PM Response to Reply #35 |
41. Your argument is so naive... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:19 PM Response to Reply #41 |
44. The same exact place the revenue would come from without the existence of the trust fund... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:39 PM Response to Reply #41 |
49. "there are many variables that can be tweaked, blah blah, that is due to the aging population blah" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kirby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:42 PM Response to Reply #49 |
50. Depends on how much taxes you want to pay... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 06:50 PM Response to Reply #50 |
53. "aging demographics" are irrelevant. but since you think they're so important, quantify them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kirby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 09:56 PM Response to Reply #53 |
54. Sorry... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 11:22 PM Response to Reply #54 |
55. lol. can't be bothered, eh? your claim that demographics is "central" is just wrong. production & |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:11 PM Response to Reply #34 |
43. By 'dire straights' you mean 'spending more than it was taking in in FICA tax revenue'. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yurbud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:12 PM Response to Reply #9 |
15. that's still more solvent than the rest of the government, so why break something that works? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alc (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:13 PM Response to Original message |
17. for the last 11 years that was their intent |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uncle Joe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:27 PM Response to Original message |
21. It would be illogical to believe that any politician following the dogma of Grover Norquist didn't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:32 PM Response to Original message |
24. No one, not even Paul Ryan, is proposing we invalidate the Trust Fund's bonds |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:52 PM Response to Reply #24 |
33. no, they're just proposing things which lead to the same result. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 03:13 PM Response to Reply #33 |
36. They're proposing changing the statutory definition of benefits |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 03:15 PM Response to Reply #36 |
37. changing the definition of benefits = not having to pay back all or part of what they borrowed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 03:38 PM Response to Reply #37 |
38. The part where that involves not paying back what was borrowed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
indurancevile (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 03:50 PM Response to Reply #38 |
39. no, it won't, under those conditions. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:22 PM Response to Reply #37 |
45. Exactly. If benefits were reduced to 0 the trust fund would never have to be paid back at all. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NNN0LHI (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:35 PM Response to Original message |
25. Lot of people were thrilled to have their SS and Medicare being spent watching Shock and Awe on TV |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:26 PM Response to Reply #25 |
46. Your Social Security dollars at work... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
B Calm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:38 PM Response to Original message |
27. The congress is bought and paid for by corporations! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Trillo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:39 PM Response to Original message |
29. We'll gladly pay you today for a hamburger tomorrow? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PoiBoy (842 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 02:43 PM Response to Original message |
31. Thom Hartmann offers up a good explanation... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fascisthunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 03:55 PM Response to Original message |
42. that's alright... the rich won't mind people breaking into their homes to steal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cool Logic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jul-26-11 04:46 PM Response to Original message |
51. Off-balance-sheet accounting was bad for Enron and it is bad for the fedgov. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat Jun 15th 2024, 05:02 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC