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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:59:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 16:44:18 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

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.

You are absolutely right.

SSA has plenty of money,

It is the US Government that can't redeem the bonds without loading up
the deficit.
I take little comfort in that hair splitting.

I'm absolutely right in the facts that I noted.

You're just libertarian who can't handle the government doing anything
for anyone except you. You refuse to send your money back, and you're
hoarding it for your "successful" kids.

"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.

"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****.

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.

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?