|
Social Security and Libertarians
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. |
Social Security and Libertarians
"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. |
Social Security and Libertarians
"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. ----------------------------------------- I'll add to my previous post: The "dot com" era was kind to Bill Clinton. Lot's of people made a lot of money for producing nothing. The result was a strong revenue stream of Social Security payments that created a large surplus. The government simply "borrowed" that money to apply to the debt which balanced the budget and reduced the deficit. Or at least it looked that way on paper. Good for legacy stuff and all. |
Social Security and Libertarians
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. |
Social Security and Libertarians
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:39:05 -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. ----------------------------------------- I'll add to my previous post: The "dot com" era was kind to Bill Clinton. Lot's of people made a lot of money for producing nothing. The result was a strong revenue stream of Social Security payments that created a large surplus. The government simply "borrowed" that money to apply to the debt which balanced the budget and reduced the deficit. Or at least it looked that way on paper. Good for legacy stuff and all. Thus, the debt is a bunch of nonsense. It's not a terrible problem, and whether or not you're correct that it was applied to the debt is not relevant to it being solvent and paying 100% for a couple of decades to come and slightly less than that forever after. |
Social Security and Libertarians
|
Social Security and Libertarians
"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. |
Social Security and Libertarians
"Urin Asshole" wrote in message ... On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:11:44 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: You're going to argue the tired argument of returning to the gold standard? That's a dead horse and is completely nonsensical. ----------------------------------------------- Your first sentence is a question. The answer is no. I never said that. "There is no short term debt crisis, there's a short term employment crisis, and even that is mostly improving." Bull****. |
Social Security and Libertarians
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:20:47 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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****. Read up where? Which right-wing conspiracy blog do you think is worth reading? Clinton or Reagan said "what"? Don't know what you are referring to. Reagan... the original post that's at the top of the article. |
Social Security and Libertarians
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:44:28 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Urin Asshole" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:11:44 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: You're going to argue the tired argument of returning to the gold standard? That's a dead horse and is completely nonsensical. ----------------------------------------------- Your first sentence is a question. The answer is no. I never said that. You said ever since we got off the gold standard. Are you arguing for us to return to "sanity"? "There is no short term debt crisis, there's a short term employment crisis, and even that is mostly improving." Bull****. Citation?? Or is this your opinion? Or, wait.. are you saying there is a short term debt crisis? Or, are you saying there isn't a short term employment crisis? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com