"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:31:25 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .

Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once in for all…Social Security
has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded
by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the
outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general
fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security
trust
fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing the budget
or erasing or lowering the deficit.

-------------------------------------------

By law, any surplus goes into the general fund from which the
government is required to buy US Government Securities. It's the
main
reason Clinton was able to claim a "surplus" during the last years of
his administration (except his *last* budget that didn't come close
to
balancing). The Government sold these securities (funded by the SS
surplus) to pay down the debt. Problem is, it didn't. The
government
still "owes" the money. Little bit of voo-doo economics, but it
sure
sounded good. Still does to many people.

The problem with SS is that the "in's" no longer add up to the
"out's" as of 2010. The "surplus" that the government is supposed
to
have (but doesn't) is now being used to augment payments ... on paper
anyway. Actually, all it does is increase the debt.

It is estimated that by 2033 or sooner, it will not be able to pay
100
percent of the obligations. Benefits will have to be reduced.


Yes, after 2033 or thereabouts if nothing is done (and I mean
NOTHING), then benefits would need to reduced by about 5%. It would
continue from there pretty much forever, with another small decrease.
It is not a short term crisis that it's made to be by those who know
better.

You think Clinton said this? It was Reagan, the patron saint of the
right wing.

---------------------------------------------------------------

It's more like reducing benefits by 25%, not 5%. (100% to 75%) But
this is what the blowhard politicians are telling you. Read up on
it. There are many very qualified economists who are at odds with
each other in terms of what the future holds. Math is supposed to be
a precise discipline. The numbers aren't supposed to lie. Why are
so many varied but qualified economic forecasts being made then?
It's because the numbers don't lie ... the politicians lie. They
treat the public like mushrooms .... keep 'em in the dark and feed
them bull****.

Clinton or Reagan said "what"? Don't know what you are referring
to.