Which part of "Social Security has *zero* to do with the debt" do DUers not understand?

[MannyGoldstein]

Social Security is forbidden BY LAW from contributing to the debt.

I continue to be blown away by DUers that link Social Security to the federal debt. I'm even more amazed by elected Democrats who do the same.

Any linkage AT ALL is simply an excuse to grab the $2.6 trillion in the Trust Fund. This conversation is PURELY about the wealthiest grabbing that money.

That's it. That's the only reason to link it at all.

[neverforget]

1. When the President is a Democrat who suggests cuts/changes to

FDR or LBJ programs that's when. Can you imagine a Republican President doing this? ALL of DU would be up in arms.

[dotymed]

64. "They" do it every time.

"They" know that one political party cannot change certain sacrosanct legislation from a different party. So, "they" have a party member that is supposed to uphold certain tenants destroy it.

Face it, we are the corporate states of America. We have one corporate party. Duh.. as my kids used to say.

[Cherchez la Femme]

93. True, but

so would be the entire country (edit for clarification: regarding 'all of DU being up in arms')
-- which includes many Republicans!

[woo me with science]

102. How ingenious to have it come from a Democrat.

They are accomplishing things they could not have dreamed of with a united Democratic opposition.

We have been suckered well, indeed.

[neverforget]

104. As only Nixon could go to China, only a Democrat could change

SS and Medicare. Suckered indeed.

[Ken Burch]

175. From "Only Nixon could go to China" to "Only Obama can go evict Grandma".

great.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

(just keep chanting "three-dimensional chess...three-dimensional chess...three dimensional chess"...)

[neverforget]

182. you have it wrong

it's 11 dimensional chess and we don't know what's good for us, peas and all that.....

[JDPriestly]

157. I repeat the millionth time.

Timid Timothy Geithner was appointed to be head of the NY Fed by a committee lead by Pete Peterson. Pete Peterson has campaigned against Social Security for years.

That Obama appointed and keeps Geithner at Treasury tells you where Obama is on Social Security. He wants to steal the retirement savings of elderly Americans. And he waited until he had a majority of Republicans in the House to work with them to do it.

Don't be fooled by Obama.

We need a true Democrat to challenge him.

[supraTruth]

2. I AGREE; it BOGGLES my mind when NO1 EVER stops those who do IN THEIR TRACKS with the TRUTH.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

9. You've been here all of 8 days -- stick around (but stop shouting). (n/t)

[dotymed]

66. When I first joined DU, I shouted a lot.

New blood is needed, after a while we become calloused to the Orwellian tactics. Then we (unfortunately?) realize that shouting doesn't help.

[Divine Discontent]

176. ditto! :)

[burrfoot]

106. ...

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground.

Who cares how long he's been here?

Did the shouting hurt your ears?


:shrug:

[juajen]

129. Stick it in your ear!

[burrfoot]

144. I am completely mystified by your response.

Stick what in my ear?

[Bluesbreaker]

172. You just undermined sombody's illusion of superiority

Keep it up!

[burrfoot]

191. ...

:toast:

[Le Taz Hot]

48. "No1?"

Here, allow me to help. "No one."

[timtom]

143. LOL

(I mean, "Laughing Out Loud")

[defendandprotect]

125. GALBRAITH CONFIRMED SOCIAL SECURITY NOT PART OF THE DEBT ... !!!

Here's a bit of a summation from my post on Galbraith's comments -- *

"An "illegitimate and prejudiced Commission with conflicts of interest" -- !!!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1471690&mesg_id=1484405






*
Link to actual article is here ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1469619

for the OP with other links --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1471690&mesg_id=1471690

[JDPriestly]

158. +1

[PoliticAverse]

3. They already grabbed the $2.6 trillion in the trust fund.

It's gone. Spent.

Now they don't want to pay it back by either:

1 - Paying increased taxes.

2 - Borrowing money (increasing the debt) to put back the money borrowed from
Social Security.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. No. Like any bank account, the money's been put to work.

In the last decade $1 trillion was borrowed for tax cuts for the top 5%, and $1 trillion for wars of choice.

The Trust Fund holds Treasury Bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Just like the bonds the Chinese hold. Should we not pay back the Chinese?

But like any bank account, it needs to be paid back.

[PoliticAverse]

6. And it will be in one of two ways...

1 - through increased taxes.

2 - By selling bonds (increasing the federal debt) to get cash to put
back in the fund.

They could also:

3 - Sell federal assets (like land)

4 - Just print the money.

But 1 and 2 are more likely.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Are we paying for the military and schools through increased taxes?

Are we repaying Chinese-held Treasuries through "increased taxes".

We pay for stuff. We need to have adequate taxes to pay for that stuff.

[PoliticAverse]

17. Tell the people that renewed the Bush tax cuts... n/t

[JDPriestly]

38. Thank you, Manny. A voice of reason.

And this whole issue of debt to GDP is way out of proportion to the reality.

I am posting this as often as I can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

All of the more industrialized nations have high debt to GDP ratios. The oil producing nations and those with less developed economies do not.

Where would you rather invest if you were China?

The US or Bhutan?

The debt to GDP of the U.S. federal government is about that of Bhutan. If you add the states' debts to it you get 92.7%. But the federal government cannot change the debts of the states.

[JDPriestly]

36. Unfortunately, they are making it more difficult for elderly people

and anyone without good internet access (including those shy about shopping online) to buy Treasuries. It's all going to be electronic.

And a lot of the people who hold Treasuries are very elderly. It was the normal thing in the generation that lived through WWII.

[verges]

92. No. 1 and 2 are the better solutions.

But in today's topsy-turvy screwed up world, 3 and 4 are more likely to happen.

[JDPriestly]

160. Congress has made it harder for elderly people to buy bonds

And the older generation is the generation that buys bonds.

How have they made it harder? All bonds are now going to be electronic. Your grandmother cannot call up or go to the bank to buy or turn over her bonds. I know some elderly people are very upset about this.

What a stupid time to decide to "save money" on the cost of the handling of the bonds.

I tried to call the Treasury (got the Federal Reserve) to find some information for an elderly friend on this. There is no way that an elderly person who does not feel comfortable handling her finances on the internet can buy bonds now. What a stupid policy to bring in.

[elocs]

22. I've said that before--how would the Chinese feel, who hold our bonds, if they see us reneging

on what we owe to our own citizens. If I were them I would get a little nervous about that.

[DeschutesRiver]

187. +1000. nt

[caseymoz]

74. That's simply a misstatement.

They've borrowed from the trust fund, but they make payments on it, and since it's issued bonds, the only way to not pay it back would be to default on all other US Treasury Bonds. If that money's "grabbed" then the money in your bank, S&L or CU is also "grabbed."

In all truth, there's a certain hypothesis about cash: to keep it a publicly in a stash in one place and not loaning it out simply invites thievery.

No, you've bought Conservative/Repub propaganda here. They wouldn't say such a thing about banking in general they only say it about the Social Security Trust Fund contrary to economics. You should give it no credibility.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

5. Many understand and don't care...it's all about Obama "winning."

Their threads are getting nastier and more childish by the day.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

They just don't care because it's Obama, a "Democrat", doing the dirty deed. If this was Bush trying to do this, OMG...Du would have imploded by now. I remember when the idiot-in-chief was trying to Privatize SS and the people here were outraged. Not so much now that Obama wants to "fix it." Now it's OK. Things get curiouser and curiouser around here.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

31. Yep. For some, it's the same sort of cognitive dissonance that could be applied to...

Bushbots.

[Lorien]

141. Indeed. The ruling elite count on Bushbots and Obamabots to argue their case

for them against the rest of us. If everyone caught on to the game there WOULD be a revolution!

[Enthusiast]

53. Why do you think the

PTB "allowed" Obama to win the presidency?

[femrap]

91. +10000 nt

[defendandprotect]

107. +1 --

[Sportsguy]

136. Interesting

Could you explain? How was he "allowed" to win the presidency? I don't understand.

[Lorien]

142. Read up on Diebold

it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes. Every race is "close" for a reason.

[emilyg]

15. They care more about the man - not

America or the Constitution. Very sad.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

30. It's disgusting.

I was looking at another 18 years to retirement, now WTF knows if they start "improving" SS and Medicare. Many Americans are already in really bad shape -- who knows what this country will look like in 20-30 years.

[emilyg]

168. Any semblance of security is gone. I retired

after a bout with cancer - now looking for a part-time job. At 73 I shouldn't have to.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

179. So sorry to hear that.

Some here -- an obnoxious few -- would have you greeting the unwashed masses at Walmart, but that shouldn't be. Good luck to you. :)

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Exactly right.

SS taxes are enough to cover benefits. You don't need to borrow to send out SS checks.

Like a bank which says that "federal banking regulations" dictate that they charge you $50 for an overdraft, what Obama means is that federal law allows him to direct the treasury to spend the SS taxes any way he chooses.

He's saying he's going to CHOOSE to spend your SS taxes on rockets and bombs, instead of granny - because he can.

[SammyWinstonJack]

65. Bingo!

:thumbsup:

[tekisui]

79. You nailed it. Obama over policy. Obama over people.

[defendandprotect]

108. +1000% -- Politicians over Principles -- !!!

[QC]

154. And there's the answer. We have gotten so caught up in the horse race aspect of politics

that it's easy to forget that we are talking about real people's lives.

It's like the pundits and alleged journalists who spend all their time interpreting poll results and expounding on who's in and who's out without ever dealing with what is at issue in a given dispute.

[gateley]

7. I think everyone who actually pays attention knows that. I don't

think that was the issue in these "negotiations", though. It was what Obama felt he needed to do to get the vote.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Then why did Obama give the "Deficit Commission" the duty of reforming Social Security?

And appoint the two most accomplished foes of Social Security to lead the Commission?

[TheKentuckian]

19. After the TeaPubliKlan sponsors voted against their own bill and killed it

Obama digs in the trash can pulls it out and resurrected the debacle and then doubled down as you said with the two most untrustworthy fucks in the known Universe on the issue not to mention the other corporate heads and Peterson types.

Obama is a driving force behind this push.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. "Time for old folks to eat their peas and catfood."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1499062#1500688

[MADem]

33. He said "OUR" peas--as in his, yours, mine, everyone's. But you're obviously angry, so whatever. NT

[tomp]

70. yeah, like obama's going to be suffering.

like he's really going to go after the super-wealthy. get freaking real.

[MADem]

87. We'll see. nt

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

94. 'Time to eat our peas'

I nearly gagged when I heard him say that. Tell that to the f*cking RICH. We've been eating peas for years. The elderly have had to cut into what savings they have or put it into investments with considerably more risk than CDs. Everyone's fear is that they will outlast their savings. It's so f*cking disgusting what has become of this nation....while the Rich and Multinationals sit and laugh at working people.

As an aside, I am job hunting and came across an ad for manager of Wendy's. The salary is $25,000/yr and requires 50 PLUS hours a week! Hope you don't have a family, friends, hobbies, pets, or anyone or anything else you want to do with your life besides work and sleep and do some necessary chores around the house.

[JDPriestly]

161. And over 65 you really can't work those hours on your feet.

But what other jobs are there.

No one wants clerical help any more -- unless the help can juggle a phone, filing and every other task for a five-person office. The rich are just so greedy that they won't even hire enough sales personnel in the stores to make it worthwhile to go to the stores.

[gateley]

24. I don't have an answer to that, Manny. nt

[defendandprotect]

109. Same reason, Obama/Duncan are destroying public edu, teachers, unions ... !!!

It works for Wall Street/profiteers -- !!

[johnaries]

184. Very simple - He didn't. Nowhere in the XO creating the

commission is SS mentioned, and Obama has said himself repeatedly that SS has nothing to do with the debt.

[dkf]

10. Actually we go into debt when we redeem the social security bonds and interest.

Where do you think the money that pays off the social security debt comes from?

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Are we also talking about not repaying China's Treasury Bonds?

Because that's being proposed to be done to Social Security. Not paying Treasury bonds.

[dkf]

21. Repaying China's treasury bonds takes more issuance of debt too.

All those interest payments don't come out of thin air you know.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. So? That's accounting.

Money is still owed.

Apparently working Americans are an inferior class of bond holders.

[Yo_Mama]

28. No it doesn't.

All it takes is interest, and some of the treasuries are zero coupon. They don't even carry interest. People bid for them at auction for a discount of face value, and the government takes the highest offer.

Suppose China comes trotting up with a fistful of matured Treasuries - 20 billion worth. The government sells another 20 billion in bonds and gives China its 20 billion. What changed from the government's standpoint? Nothing, except for the interest paid.

In contrast, last year the SS Trustees needed about 45 billion. Treasury had to go out and sell 45 billion of ADDITIONAL treasuries to come up with that 45 billion.

[dkf]

45. If they were zeros you would have to reissue the maturity value to pay it back

[femrap]

96. Zero-coupons are usually

sold to people who don't need the interest now but need a sum of money at a future date....say for college or retirement.

However, speculators like to trade zeros since they are more volatile. These bonds are merely stripped of the monthly/quarterly interest and instead pay it in the future.

It's just another type of treasury bond marketed to a different type of investor.

Debt is debt, however.

Anyone want to turn the Pentagon into a Triangle???? That's where the big bucks go. Hell working people have been paying into SS their entire working lives. Give us OUR money.

edited for spelling

[Yo_Mama]

27. They're not real Treasury bonds

By law, they're a special class of IOUs that can not be sold to the public. Also they don't carry market Treasury rates either - there'd be considerably more in the Trust fund if they did.

It's as if the government sent you special currency in exchange for your excess FICA contributions all these years. You'd now have a pile of Monopoly retirement money, but the only good it would be is if you could get the government to give you real money in exchange. It would be against the law for you to go out and spend it in the store.

In contrast, a Treasury bill or bond is a legal instrument that can be transferred to anyone, with all the same rights to payment.

[girl gone mad]

50. The debt is canceled at bond redemption.

You're very opinionated for someone in possession of so little common sense.

[slipslidingaway]

13. knr nt

[krabigirl]

14. K & r

[bahrbearian]

18. Obama said it was so it is get over it !

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

62. Ah

no he didn't

President Obama: "Social security is not the source of our deficit problems."

[Divine Discontent]

174. bringing it into the debt limit ceiling crisis is a political mistake, and an upsetting action

regardless, by a Democratic president. I never Never NEVER thought my friend on SSI would be scared by the threat that SS checks may not go out, but because of the sheer terror it causes people to think they might not be able to pay their rent, he called and said he was nervous it was going to happen since the president said he couldn't guarantee anything... that's just wrong. I knew it was wrong the moment he said it, and it infuriated a huge portion of society.

[Yo_Mama]

25. You're wrong, in point of fact.

See Treasury Direct Debt to the Penny.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Notice that the total is about 14.3 trillion, but that amount is split into two divisions.
1) Money that we have borrowed is in Debt Held By The Public, currently at 9.75 trillion and about to go over 10 trillion as soon as the debt limit is raised.
2) Money that we plan to borrow in the future is in "Intragovernmental Holdings". These are promises to pay one part of the government has made to another. They are bookkeeping entries. By far the largest segment is composed of the SS and Medicare Trust Funds. Because this money is money we plan to borrow from the public in the future, it is included by law in the debt limit.

When SS or Medicare revenues to the government fall short of the benefits that need to be paid out(both are currently running in the red), the Trustees take some of their promises of payment and give them to the general fund asking for real money in exchange. Either the general fund has to get money by cutting other programs or raising taxes, or Treasury has to turn around and sell bonds to the public to get money to give to the Trustees.

Therefore, Debt held by the public is deeply affected by the use of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Ten years from now if we continue on our current path, people are going to start saying "no" to those Treasuries. At that point, the SS trust fund will be a meaningless entity (the Medicare trust fund will mostly be exhausted then anyway). Granted, people already paid that money in, but even that money, if we could borrow it, would only continue SS in its current form until about 2036/37. 25 years, about.

But regardless, the factual truth is that our plan to use all those trillions in Intragovernmental holdings in various Trust funds means that we have to go out and borrow money on the open market. The theory was that as the excess amounts were paid in, we would give the money to the general fund, and the general fund would use that money to pay down debt held by the public, so when the boomers started to retire public debt would be very low and we would have no problem borrowing it on the open market when it was needed. That didn't happen - it would have required great fiscal discipline.

The other way this could have been handled is that instead of giving money to the government, the Trustees could have directly bought Treasuries each year with their excess revenues. If the Trustees had been authorized by law to do that, then there would be no problem using the Trust Fund, because Debt Held By the Public would not increase. When the Trustees needed money to pay Medicare and SS benefits last year, they would have just sold Treasuries. Doing so would just have moved debt from one person to another - it would not have changed anything for government funding. A lot of people believe that this is what happened with the Trust Funds, but that is wrong.

There would have been repercussions if SS and Medicare had been handled that way. The first result would be that interest expense all these years would have been higher, but we would have been paying a good chunk of it effectively to future retirees, so we would have been funding our own debt instead of flogging the debt to China. But in the interim some other government spending would have been constrained, because our debt would have gotten too large otherwise. Also the economy would have been a little slower (higher taxes). Basically the Medicare and SS excess revenues were used to fund excess spending by the federal government and lower taxes. The "deficits" and "surpluses" reported by the federal government all these years were fake - they used the excess Medicare and SS to close a funding gap. This justified lower taxes in the interim, but the retirees get screwed now.

As it is, however, the reality is that if we borrow all that money and continue all the other spending, before 2022 we will be like Italy and our government debt will be over 100% of GDP. At that point, we would have to massively cut federal spending, because the interest rates we'd be paying would be somewhat high and nominal growth in the economy would have to be maintained higher than our interest expense, which would mean that instead of borrowing, we'd have to maintain a primary surplus. Italy has been forced to do that for years, and it was successful, but the last recession put Italy under and it never can climb out now. That's why there is all the hysteria in Europe. It was never really about Greece - it was always about Italy.

This is a matter of pure mathematics. Once your debt held by the public gets up past 90%, you are in acute danger of defaulting on the debt. Once it reaches 100%, you are just about certain to default on the debt.

That is because if your nominal GDP grows by 5% a year, and if you are paying an average 5% on your debt held by the public, you can never borrow any new money or your debt/GDP ratio grows. So even if you raise taxes and cut federal spending, the first recession that comes along tips you over (taxes always collapse in a recession).

I hope that is understandable. If it is not, I'll try again.

[PoliticAverse]

41. Since they indicate that the trust fund securities are 'included in the debt llimit'

already, then can't they be redeemed for cash by selling treasury bills/bonds/notes without going over the debt ceiling?
Thus Social Security payments wouldn't be affected by hitting the debt ceiling.

[JDPriestly]

46. The federal debt is only 57.9%

See this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

The IMF arrives at 92.7% by including state debts.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare will shift the cost for caring for very elderly people and very sick seniors to the states. Very few seniors have the money to pay for the kind of medical care that they need in their final years.

The only answer is to raise taxes on the people who earn enough money to permit them to pay higher taxes -- the very rich.

This is a question of patriotism.

My grandmother told me that Social Security was created because up until it was, the very elderly had to go to the "Poor House," which was usually a horrible place maintained at the expense of local authorities, for example, counties.

The debt ceiling did not have to be raised as often during the Clinton administration as it has in some other administrations. That is because, as a Democrat, he handled the economy much more carefully than Bush did.

In fact, Bush was dishonest about the state of the economy, and that is why the burden of "fixing" the economy has fallen to the Obama administration.

Obama is failing in "fixing" it. He should be out here talking to citizens, not sitting in the White House talking to foolish Republicans.

Prior to the 1930s a much higher percentage of Americans lived on farms than live on farms now. When the owners of a farm, the parents, became too old to work on the farm, they either continued to live on the farm with their children or moved to "town" and lived on the income from the transference of the farm to their children or someone else.

In the 1930s, there were a lot of foreclosures of farms. The system in which parents retired based on farm income or gifts from their children was impossible in a time in which there was so much need and so much poverty. That is why Roosevelt set up Social Security -- to prevent a recurrence of the terrible crisis that caring for the aging presented in the 1930s.

And now, the Republicans and especially, Timothy Geithner's protector, Pete Peterson, want to dismantle Social Security and give Wall Street control over all of the nation's retirement funds. That is a horrible idea as all seniors who lost money in the 2008 crisis know. Obviously, Obama is a key supporter of the efforts to privatize Social Security. Were he not, he would not have appointed Tim Geithner as his Secretary of the Treasury.

Obama's role in this is scandalous. He is no Democrat. I strongly support real Democrats, but I will not support Obama. He should have dealt with this issue when he had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. The fault for this falls completely and totally on Obama. It is a betrayal of his Democratic supporters.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. This deserves to be its own thread

Perfectly stated.

The fix has been in from the start.

[bbgrunt]

114. thank you. very well-stated

[JDPriestly]

162. Sorry. The federal government's portion of the debt is 58.9%

[DeschutesRiver]

188. Thank you for that, and I feel the same re your last paragraph.

All of the deceit surrounding how the Social Security issue is being framed is upsetting to me, but the worst to me is that Obama's role in it has become some I cannot deny nor explain away.

I am rather sick hearted over it. And yes, this fall entirely upon Obama's shoulders - he is behaving in a deceitful manner. Prior to this, if you asked me if he was capable of flat out mistating/lying/frightening voters to get his way, I would have defended him and never believed that he would do such a thing. I do understand politics, and roughness, but I believed he was a good man.

And now I have doubts; and no, at this juncture, I am not able to support Obama until and unless I can wrap my mind around the "why" of what he is doing, and the way in which he is doing it.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. I agree with many of your specifics, but

Your basic claim seems to be that the the Social Security borrowing is effectively "off the books", that is, it's not counted as debt. However, it's far from secret. Don't you think the markets realize that this money needs to be paid back at sometime?

Seems to me that accounting trickery doesn't count here, because everything's open to inspection.

Social Security hold bonds backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States Government". They must be repaid just as any other bonds need to be repaid. Giving the Chinese a haircut would be a default, and legislating a haircut for Social Security is no less a default.

On another note: the Trust Fund http://www.handsoffss.org/will-social-security-go-bankrupt-in-the-future.html">is pretty unlikely to be depleted in 2036/2037.

[Creideiki]

26. The part where Social Security has zero to do with the debt

It's tough to understand.

They also don't seem to understand that the Bush tax cuts and the Bush-Obama wars of choice do.

[me b zola]

29. K&R

[MADem]

32. Well, when the US government raids the lockbox, it does have to do with the debt.

The government borrowed money from the lockbox, and now they owe a debt to it--they have to put the money they swiped back....

Al Gore was right about the lockbox.

[PoliticAverse]

37. It's actually in a locked file cabinet... n/t

[MADem]

40. We'd be better off if that were the case--but we'd need a very big cabinet. NT

[PoliticAverse]

42. The trust fund securities really are kept in a fireproof locked file cabinet

at the Bureau of the Public Debt.

[MADem]

43. Who's that thief on the right, swiping the goods? nt

[JDPriestly]

47. So, they have to repay it.

Imposing high taxes on very large inheritances would be a good place to start.

[Enthusiast]

54. "Oh, we can't have a death tax!"

:sarcasm: :nuke:

[JDPriestly]

111. The Koch Brothers want to keep their money and control in the family.

[MADem]

90. That's a lead balloon, people whine about it too hard.

Maybe start with "medium" taxes on inheritances and the very wealthy, and we'd have a hope. They're far too accustomed to not having to pay a fair share.

Every idiot thinks their grandma's crappy old house in the rust belt is worth more than it is, and that they'll somehow get screwed over when she dies.

[Enthusiast]

137. People only think this shit

because they listen to "Loudmouth Limbaugh". People barely above the poverty level are afraid of a "death tax" because Limbaugh told them the evil liberals will even take their money in death. It's pathetic.

[MADem]

183. Quite true--he's got millions of not-too-bright fans.

They don't seem to understand that they have to be stinkin' rich to even feel a "death tax" and none of them are, or will ever be, that wealthy.

[xchrom]

34. Recommend

[JDPriestly]

35. Thanks. Manny. There is no tie whatsover and cutting

Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits will have a disastrous effect on the economy as well as on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the country.

Obama has made a mess of this, an absolute mess.

[chill_wind]

44. SS Cola cuts? Raise the retirement age? "Let me be clear."

"Now let me be clear. I will not do either."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1497099#top

[NorthCarolina]

56. That was then. n/t

[chill_wind]

98. Yep. n/t

[amborin]

97. "any bill I sign......"

meaningless b.s.

[defendandprotect]

115. Thanks for the info -- more campaign promises broken by Obama ...!!

[somone]

49. Recommended

[Sirveri]

51. This was more true before they cut payroll taxes and paid the shortfall from the gen fund.

But previous to that butchery of the great political separation, I would agree with you.

[defendandprotect]

117. Simply more gimmickry to confuse the public -- Social Security should NOT be running a surplus ...

that's the answer -- and FICA taxes for poor and middle class should be reduced --

and cap on wealthy should be heavily increased!!

[Sirveri]

126. That's moronic. Social Security has to run a surplus to pay for times of need.

The entire reason we have such a huge trust fund is because of a surplus that will quickly become exhausted once the baby boomers retire. That is why the program needs to run surpluses, to prepare for lean years. Unless you really want to fight for funding every year when the boomers start to retire.

Yes the cap should be raised, it already is according to CPI-W, but it should be tied to growth in top tier income, but that's another story. Cutting FICA and paying the resulting shortfall ties the program into the general fund, at which point you can claim that it's a part of the deficit. This is EXACTLY what people were warning about back in 2010. A payroll tax holiday would be used to tie OASDI (Social Security) into the federal budget, and then get the blame for the deficit and proceed to go to the hatchetman for cuts.

Now look at what happened.
He cut payroll taxes
We hit the debt ceiling
Republicans point to Social security (which has nothing to do with our debt) but is now tied directly to the general fund
Obama starts eyeing Social security for cuts to balance the budget.

FICA needs to stay as it is, the cap needs to come up, and this stupid payroll tax holiday needs to vanish. You want lower taxes, pass the making work pay credit again, and you'll have even lower taxes for the working poor.

[defendandprotect]

131. No -- Social Security was purposefully NEVER intended to run a surplus ...

but was gimmicked by GOP/Alan Greenspan to provide a larger slush fund for Bush --

Running a surplus based on the fakery of "baby boomers" was just more gimmickry --

And the costs of that increased surplus were raised by trnasferring the burden of

FICA taxes to the poor and middle class.


If you're trying to suggest that a minor surplus of funds kept on hand as was usually

done has anything to do with these HUGE SURPLUSSES then you should rethink that.


Again -- retirement age should be lowered as recommended by Galbraith -- see his

comments in another post by me on this thread --

and also that Medicare age should be lowered --

Agree completely with that --

Also lower FICA taxes for poor and middle class -- and increase cap on Wealthy --


END THE REAGAN AND BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH -- they are the ones who have benefitted

from the slush fund -- !!

Wall Street and War Profiteers!!



Here's a link to a summation of Galbraith's comments by me --
which includes a link to the actual article --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1471690&mesg_id=1484405

[Enthusiast]

52. Apparently the Obama Administration is

going to cut the dedicated funding mechanism until social security DOES contribute to the debt.

"the largest single bank account in the world."

[ThomWV]

55. The strongest connection between SSS and the Debt is that 1/3 of the National Debt is owed to SSS

[PoliticAverse]

60. Closer to 1/5.

SS Trust fund debt (end of 2010): $ 2,609,000,000,000.00
Total debt is: 14,342,953,885,641.98

Radio = 0.182 between 1/6 and 1/5

[defendandprotect]

118. 1/3rd of the national debt was BORROWED from Social Security Surplus ...

the surplus has been used as a slush fund -- to give tax increases to the wealthy,

for one and to run wars we can't afford.

We should end the surplus -- Social Security was never intended to run a surplus --

lower the FICA rates on poor and middle class -- increase the FICA cap for wealthy!!

[defendandprotect]

133. Galbraith explains Social Security as "transfer" program ... no part of debt -- here ...

This is my summation -- however it includes a link to the actual article --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1471690&mesg_id=1484405

[Bryn]

57. k&r

[mmonk]

58. Those that follow the current "wisdom" of politicians will misunderstand.

At least there are more people at DU as a percentage that don't than the general public.

[dotymed]

59. Thank You Manny.

I thought I was getting dementia. The whole SS conversation has bewildered me and those that I attempt to enlighten, think I must have "lost it."

[sendero]

61. It's a distinction without a difference.

.... Taxes have to be raised to pay SS because the money was SPENT. The fact that there are bonds is sweet and all, but to redeem the bonds taxes have to be collected. Of the pool of taxes collected, it is a zero sum game, taxes spent on SS cannot be spent on other things.

I'm a supporter of SS but let's don't get into bullshit semantic arguments over the money. It was SPENT.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. The money from the China and other investors was also spent

Should that not be paid back in full?

[sendero]

89. I do not disagree..

... that the SS bonds should be at the top of the creditor list.

That is really not the issue here. The issue is "of taxes we collect how much is going to fund SS?".

Clearly, we are OWED the trust fund. But like all government obligations pretty much the world over, our only piggy bank is taxation, and there are practical limits to how much taxes can be. Not to say we are anywhere close - the Bush tax cuts were bad policy and need to be reversed.

But even doing that, and it will eventually be done, is not going to fund SS (a small problem that is fixable with tweaks) and Medicare (a disaster that is unsustainable in anything like its present form).

So while I am very much PRO SS and Medicare, the fact that there are some malefactors exaggerating the severity of thing doesn't mean we don't have a long term problem, we do.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. Medicare is a problem; Social Security is zero problem.

Medicare is a problem because we choose to not control the cost of health care like every single other industrialized country does.

Social Security is http://www.handsoffss.org/will-social-security-go-bankrupt-in-the-future.html">no problem unless the current recession is permanent.

[ProSense]

121. Hmmm?

From your link:

"So, unless the US economy is about to get even worse than today and stay that way, Social Security should pay full benefits for our lifetimes and beyond."

Is that what passes as definitive, in-depth and reassuring analyses: "Unless," "should", "our lifetimes" (whose?).

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

122. Let's start off very, very simply

Perhaps we can have a dialog.

First off: can we agree that a prediction is not a guarantee?

[ProSense]

124. Also from the

site you linked to:

As economist Dean Baker points out, given that even the worst reasonable projection of Social Security sees no problems in paying full benefits for another 27 years, we could easily wait a while and see if the economy gets as bad as projected. Even if we wait 10 years and the pessimistic projections are confirmed, Social Security could still be firmed up with only modest changes to contribution rules.

link

What if the President is a Republican and they also control the House and Senate?

All speculation, conjecture, opinion, all the time!!!!

"First off: can we agree that a prediction is not a guarantee?"

If it's "not a guarantee," what's the problem with strengthening the program?

[MannyGoldstein]

127. So do we agree that a prediction (or projection) is not a guarantee?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

[ProSense]

130. Does

slash = cut?

:rofl:

"So do we agree that a prediction (or projection) is not a guarantee?"

Hmmm? That's a tough one. Are there instances in which "a prediction (or projection)" is definitive? What about a guess?

BRB, let me look into it.

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

132. I'd think that your side could articulate a rational position

But you seem to be unable.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

164. My side?

I support strengthening Social Security. Do you?

[MannyGoldstein]

173. Cutting the COLA formula or reducing the age of eligibility is

cutting Social Security, and as such is a deep betrayal of working Americans.

Do you agree?

I'm all in favor of "strengthening" Social Security by adding money from taxes on the wealthy, but it's unnecessary. Social Security is fine as it is.

[defendandprotect]

135. MEDICARE FOR ALL would cure any problems -- and save government money .. create 2.3 million jobs!

[sendero]

153. I agree.

.... with you. The only reason we have a problem with Medicare is that health care costs eat up a ridiculous portion of GDP in our country compared to all others, with mediocre outcomes to boot.

[defendandprotect]

134. You are ignoring that rich have benefitted from SS slush fund .... taxes must be raised on wealthy!!

It is the wealthy who have profitted from the Social Security surplus --

Bush used it to pay for tax cuts for wealthy -- and for his wars --

We need to end the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for rich --

they profitted -- they owe the money!

[defendandprotect]

120. All you are saying is Social Security Surplus was used as slush fund for rich ....

and war profiteers -- and they don't want to repay it!!

So is money lent to us by China and Mexico and other nations "spent" --

are we also going to default on what we owe them because it's "spent" -- ????

Let's try telling THEM that -- !!!


:eyes:

[girl gone mad]

163. A sovereign currency regime doesn't have to borrow or tax in order to spend.

A fiat currency system is not a zero sum game.

It would not have made sense for the government to save the money. Saving is an act done by entities which are financially constrained and therefore must reduce consumption in the short term so that they can consume more later. As the monopoly issuer of our currency, the government never has to reduce spending over the short term in order to 'store up' capacity for consumption later. It simply doesn't work that way.

[saras]

192. No. Much of it was STOLEN. And can be taken back by the people with the most guns (that's us).

[ProSense]

63. President Obama: "Social security is not the source of our deficit problems."

President Obama: "Social security is not the source of our deficit problems."

"I'm even more amazed by elected Democrats who do the same."

Which elected Democrats believe that?

[MannyGoldstein]

68. That's odd: I thought Obama keeps insisting on Social Security cuts as part

of a deficit-reduction package. And part of the "Deficit" Commission's charter was to get Social Security under control.

So is my information wrong?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

75. Let's see what she has to say

Perhaps I'm totally mistaken here.

[tomp]

78. i love you, manny....

....but, really......

[ProSense]

116. "So is my information wrong?"

Yes, always.

[MannyGoldstein]

123. Can you be specific?

Thanks.

[blkmusclmachine]

67. Reminds me of this:

None so blind as those who are paid to not see.

[Hubert Flottz]

71. I feel your pain Manny.

Hang in there man.

[treestar]

76. DUers understand.

Republicans don't.

[MrMickeysMom]

88. I would also say that not nearly enough Democrats do...

... and some Republicans do.

Let's be honest here... This Congress is pretty dumbed down in a bi-partisan way.

[Jakes Progress]

80. When cutting SS for the debt comes to a politician's lips

you know they are lying. Or stupid.

This is one of those you-can't-have-it-both-ways kind of things. If a politician, Democrat or republican, talks about using cuts in SS to affect the debt, they are really too stupid for the job they have or they are so nasty that they lie without conscience. This is one reason I get so upset when our president does this. You expect lying and stupidity from republicans and even from opportunistic blue dogs. But I didn't spend all that campaigning time to put a liar or an idiot in office. We had just had 8 years with a doofus in the oval office who was both stupid and mendacious.

[somone]

81. The question bears repeating

[rucky]

82. My understanding is that the interest paid on borrowing from the SS fund

comes out of the budget.

But you're right - this is an attempt to welch on some of the debt incurred.

[Bozita]

83. Recommended!

[myrna minx]

84. It's the right wing framing ~ being used by both parties. It's exhausting. n/t

[felix_numinous]

85. It's a money trust made out of OUR PAYCHECKS

-a TRUST that keeps money in circulation as a DEAL with the government in EXCHANGE to be used until we retire. It really is that simple. I learned this in civics back in HS.


IT. IS. OUR. MONEY.

[MrMickeysMom]

86. ABSOLUTELY GAAAAHHD-DAMNED RIGHT, MANNY

I've had this argument here before. Never forget what that fucking bastard, Alan Greenspan did to systematically, beginning with Rag-Gun, ruin this trust fund!

Again, for all who want a good account that is easy to digest, may I point you to Ravi Batra's "Greenspan's Fraud" which was a best seller... from page 18:

The 1983 legislation also stipulated that starting from 1992, the proceeds of the Trust Fund would be separated from the general budget and not made part of the unified budget. ...

Even though the new Social Security act had vocal bipartisan support, the Democrats were somewhat subdued, while the Republicans were euphoric. At its signing ceremony, President Reagan hailed it as 'a monument to the spirit of compassion and commitment that unites us as a people... The changes in the legislation will allow Social Security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations to come'. Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill, who stood nearby, pitched in and echoed the effusive spirit of the congregation: 'It shows, as the present said, the system does work. This is a happy day for America.' It would actually turn out to be a day of infamy.

Thank you, Alan Greenspan, and thank you both parties of the branch of government who are supposed to represent us, not follow along like wet noodles and turn-coats.

Manny.... I can't even get my member of Congress to admit this law isn't broken every time they pass a budget. How could he? He's a poser, right along with the rest of them who allow this shit to go on.

[Cherchez la Femme]

95. Hate to say this, but

Ockham's Razor leads me to believe that this our Democratic resident is taking up where Bush,

--he of the 'Political Capital & I'm gonna use it', capital which was soon lost--

is picking up where Dubya was forced to abandon it.

What other reason could there possibly be?

[Cherchez la Femme]

190. THAT WAS A TYPO!!!

I did NOT mean "resident"

I truly meant "president"


Sincere apologies!

[Cool Logic]

99. SS shouldn't have anything to do with it...but the $2.6 Trillion was "borrowed..."

That is, by definition, a debt.

[woo me with science]

100. Kicked and strongly recommended.

[krispos42]

101. But it HAS to do with the debt!

My TV told me so! A white older guy in a nice suit said so!

[truth2power]

103. So, why doesn't Pres. Obama tell the American people that SS doesn't

add to the deficit? Whether he's stupid (which I don't think is the case) or he's saying something that's not true, if he's not telling us the truth, why should we support him? Would you continue to associate with someone who kept lying to you all the time?

Furthermore, why doesn't at least one member of our worthless supine press have the balls to ask him why he keeps perpetuating that lie?

[defendandprotect]

105. Thank you -- and RW propaganda -- Wall St. Journal built the myth ...

been catapulting that propaganda for 30 years now!!

[varelse]

110. Thank you

this has been making me nuts, too.

[Stinky The Clown]

112. Good thread, Manny. Some pretty interesting answers to it.

[SSDA]

113. Obama should be ashamed of himself

He needlessly lied about this.

[customerserviceguy]

128. When 'our' President supports weakening SS

by his cockamamie payroll tax holidays that benefit high earners way more than folks making minimum wage, with the difference being made up by borrowed funds, then SS does visibly start to contribute to the national debt.

[awoke_in_2003]

138. I was amazed earlier this week...

when one of the biggest cheerleaders (with big sig pic) told me in a thread that Social Security was a mandated scam. Do we really needs these assholes in the party?

[AnneD]

139. ITA...

It is all a smoke screen to get at our money and destroy it for our kids. The social security tax was raised during Regan's time to prepare for the boomers retirement. So basically Boomer have paid for their parent's and their retirement. What these politicians want to do is claim that pot of cash and change the rules at the end. I have effectively been screwed out of most of my SS because after working enough quarters, I went to work in the lower paying public sector. And God forbid I double dip. And now they are trying to take my state pension too. Enough is enough.

[trud]

140. Thank you, Manny

I keep saying this in several forums but it falls on deaf ears. People have been so indoctrinated about "greedy elders" and "feeding off the young," it's like trying to talk to a birther.

I was shocked when I got my record of SS taxes, crunched the numbers including compound interest that had earned, and realized I'd never get back in benefits nearly that amount.

[robinlynne]

145. I really like the truth. k&r.

[Fire1]

146. We ALL understand it. n/t

[William769]

147. K&R.

[geckosfeet]

148. Thank you Manny. Class warfare at it's finest. Those who have, want it more.

They are willing to lie and cheat to take what little savings (SS) workers have managed to tuck away. When we want to raise taxes on the rich and corporations, they say it's class warfare. When they want to take what is ours, they say it's to address the deficit and national debt.

The military industrial complex is a hungry monster consuming all in it's path - so it we, the workers who must sacrifice ourselves to it so it can protect us from the bad guys. The bad terra-ists, wmd sellers and socialists will zap us and our fambilieez if we do not pay out protection money. So folks, give to your local area corporate death merchants and be safe from the enemy!

[Myrina]

149. Kick, Rec and Amen.

n/t

[jimlup]

150. I hope everyone who posts here except for the trolls would get this...

But I guess not. *Sigh*

[roxiejules]

151. Debt Ceiling Charade a Move to the Right

Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2uxb0oIfnE&feature=player_embedded

[Javaman]

152. I really is staggering.

Thanks for posting this.

[whathappened]

194. don't we know

don't we know by now , d.c.is 1 big club , when there talking to us , its lies , when there in there comfert zone in d.c. , they do as they please , whats coming out of there mouths has been rehersed and planned , were fooked , there is no 1 you can trust in d.c. anymore , there club is a private club after we elect them , if we even do that anymore , anyways , there cub knows all the money clubs , and there is plenty money changeing hands , people like me are gonna have to go back to the flields and grow our food , cause they are not gonna share any of it with us , thats fooked up:wtf:

[Honeycombe8]

155. I know that. What I wonder is WHY don't I see Dems blanketing the airwaves saying this?

It will have a deficiency problem, within itself, in a matter of years. But that is not the federal deficit.

In fact, the federal govt borrowed the Social Security funds, and is a creditor of the federal govt.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the fed govt would default on its payments to Social Security (that it borrowed). Hmmmmm. Maybe another part of the Republican plan.

[lunasun]

156. If the election had not been stolen in 2000 there may have been an understanding by the public

GORE: I will keep it in a lockbox. The interest savings, I would put right back into it. That extends the life for 55 years. ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paying off national debt keeps trust fund solvent until 2054

* Gore wants to maintain the existing Social Security system (and indeed raise benefits), by subsidizing it from general taxation. He would:would pay down the national debt as soon as possible, and transfer the equivalent of the interest saved to the Social Security trust fund
* supports providing increased Social Security benefits to widows and women who take time off to bring up children
* opposes raising retirement age to 70
* would introduce, in addition to Social Security, individual accounts called “Retirement Savings Plus”, in which savings would be matched (at different rates according to income) by the federal government

Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” Sep 30, 2000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They now -2011-will raid the biggest 'pension fund' left around these parts. Theyve taken most of the corproate ones by mergers and raided them
sigh

[liberal N proud]

165. BUT something needs to be done!!!

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[Pharaoh]

166. they've already grabbed it!

They just don't want to pay it back.

Now they are starting to suck down the Civil Service Pension Fund.

[backtomn]

167. It shouldn't have anything to do with it, but.....

The "Trust Fund" is a bunch of IOU's........all of it spent on other budget items. But since we have more Social Security money coming in than going out, why is Obama threatening retirees with not getting checks ?? Politics really sucks sometimes.

[DeschutesRiver]

186. The "Trust Fund" invested the money in special issue Treasuries - and like all treasuries sold

the money given to the government in exchange for the bond (which is a promise to repay the bondholder) was spent. That is the purpose of any bond, ie to raise money to be spent in some way. The entire bond market is nothing but IOUs, and that is not only nothing new, that is the whole point. Why would anyone, government, corporations, etc, sell bonds other than to raise money to spend?

I have no idea why Obama has made these comments - I can't express how unhappy I am about that fact. He is not a stupid man. He is a lawyer, like me. He fucking knows better, but it appears that he is assuming that most of the American public does NOT know better.

I've defended him before on statements, but there is simply no rational explantion for this deceit on his part. This is the first time that I can actually say my president is flat out lying about this issue, and I guess because he thinks most people don't know better. I am sick about it, and still hope there is a better explanation.

[DeSwiss]

169. K -- fucking -- R!!!

[midnight]

170. Manny good point... But I'm thinking that this

Debt crisis is manufactured to stealth away our money, houses, education.... and create a workforce similar to slavery..... Why on earth would we be held hostage by three wars, ten years of mega tax cuts for the umber wealthy, and a president that is telling us the jobs are not coming back and that this is a jobless recovery.....

[farscape]

171. I get it, but

no one put me in charge to make the decision about it. So my knowing it is utterly meaningless.

[DissedByBush]

177. When did a law ever stop a politician from spending money?

It's gone.

[Orangepeel]

178. It has something to do with it. It owns it.

at least part of it.

[grahamhgreen]

180. Well said!

[joanbarnes]

185. amen

[DeschutesRiver]

189. It is all fun and games until a government defaults on bonds to its own people

and once they do that, it is over for any country. Including the USA. Our politicians can obfuscate the issue all they wish, but the facts are clear about what they are actually trying to do, and it is very ugly indeed. I am not going to stand by and see seniors who paid in to SS eat catfood and peas or watch people who work hard physical labor jobs be told that due to some "fake" issue with SS, that they must break their bodies even longer before getting what is their end of the contractual bargain merely because some in Washington believe we are too stupid to understand the process.

I just wanted to say thank you for bringing clarity to this issue. I'd been arguing with dh over this - told him that SS wasn't part of the debt, to which he'd reply casually "well, that isn't what "they" are saying". When I saw your post, I did some googling to get my facts straight, and found what I needed.

Now, he is as sick hearted over this as I am. Because it isn't that complicated at all, and we both realize that Obama is not being straight about this issue. No congressperson is, but the fact that Obama appears to be doing the same is dumbfounding. I have no idea where to go from here, but I am armed with facts and law instead of posturing points gathered from inaccurate news sources and politicians. There simply has to be a way to get the message out so that the public is also armed with facts not fantasy - thanks for your posts which are attempting to do exactly that.

P.S. Maybe the day will come when the US must decide which creditors to pay in what order - I suggest that with respect to the SS creditor, if they do not wish to raise the money for the bond redemptions by taxation, then they better decide what government property to sell to satisfy the debt they legally owe to the SS trust fund. I hear constant bitching about how much $$ it takes to maintain and operate National Parks - perhaps they could sell a few to fund any necessary bond redemptions. Seniors often have to sell things dear to them in order to make good on promises to pay their own creditors - the government shouldn't think they are above such things themselves.

[Kaleva]

193. Well, there's 116 billion a year paid in interest to the SS Trust Fund.

Without that interest payment, SS would be operating in the red by 45 billion this year.