#Liberal economists warn Dems may betray us on SS
5668 Dead, 811 since 1/20/09
siege-democrats/
Liberal economists say Democrats also eyeing cuts to Social Security
By Sahil Kapur
Monday, August 30th, 2010 -- 8:21 am
Prominent progressive economists are warning liberals and senior citizens
not to take Social Security for granted simply because Republicans are
out of power, arguing that structural incentives are propelling
Democratic leaders to support scaling back the cherished program.
"Social Security faced its greatest danger when Bill Clinton was in the
White House," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research, in an e-mail. "The reason is that the Wall Street
Democrats can be counted on to oppose cuts coming from Republicans for
partisan purposes. When they are in power, they have no reason to oppose
these cuts."
Baker, a respected economist and strong opponent of Social Security cuts,
has long challenged lawmakers of both parties who advocate reductions in
the program, and regularly criticizes the mainstream media for what he
views as cowering to elite misinformation on the issue.
"The immediate threat to Social Security is plans to cut benefits by
either changing the benefit formula and/or raising the retirement age,"
Baker argued last week in the Huffington Post. "This threat comes not
just from the Republican Party, but from the top levels of the Democratic
Party as well."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote this month in the New
York Times that "the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well
as nearly all Republicans joining the assault." He argues that Democrats,
including Obama, are are bowing to pressure from Washington insiders,
"for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served
as a badge of fiscal seriousness."
Story continues below...
Economist Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of the liberal
magazine The American Prospect, posited Sunday in the Huffington Post
that "too many legislators make Delphic comments about whether Social
Security should be 'on the table,'" including, he declared, "many
Democratic as well as Republican congressmen, and some in the Obama
administration."
Social Security, which enjoyed its 75th anniversary this month, is
running a $2.5 trillion surplus, according to the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, and its Trust Fund is not projected to
deplete before 2037.
Democrats are hammering their Republican rivals in this year's midterm
election campaigns for supporting major cuts to -- if not fully
privatizing, as they attempted and failed to do during the Bush
administration -- the popular program. But while a number of Democrats
have unequivocally said they oppose any cuts to Social Security, several
key Democrats have endorsed some changes of their own.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Jim Clyburn (D-SC), a
leadership member, have endorsed incrementally raising the retirement age
in accordance with average life span, which they say will diminish the
need to cut future benefits. A DNC spokesman last week told Raw Story
that Social Security needs to be "tweaked" but not "torn apart from its
very foundations."
President Barack Obama's deficit commission is also considering scaling
back Social Security. Its co-chair, Alan Simpson, recently ignited a
firestorm when it was revealed that he privately called Social Security
"a milk cow with 310 million tits." He apologized, and the White House
accepted.
To liberals, the safety net for seniors created by Social Security, which
enjoyed its 75th anniversary this month, is a crowning example of
government being used to improve peoples' lives. For the same reason, it
is disliked by conservatives, whose core philosophy states that
government activism is implicitly harmful to society.
"Our best hope," Baker quipped, "could be to rely on right-wingers who
don't want the government messing with their Social Security."
Jeffrey Scott Linder
There is no money in the trust fund. The surplus every year is spent
and is gone.
JSL
5668 Dead, 811 since 1/20/09
Liar.
NoBody
<dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0830/liberal-economists-social-security-
>siege-democrats/
>
>Liberal economists say Democrats also eyeing cuts to Social Security
>
>By Sahil Kapur
>Monday, August 30th, 2010 -- 8:21 am
>
>Prominent progressive economists are warning liberals and senior citizens
>not to take Social Security for granted simply because Republicans are
>out of power, arguing that structural incentives are propelling
>Democratic leaders to support scaling back the cherished program.
>
The Dems are the one's who have stopped the COLA for SS for two years
as the cost of everything has shot up.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Really? Where is that $2.5 trillion dollars located? Is it in gold?
$100 bills? I heard its in a filing cabinet in some office in West
Virginia.
JSL
liberal
No, he is correct. The surplus is put into the general fund and SocSec
is given treasury bills.
Even the Obama admin projects 500 billion dollar deficits for the next
ten years.
Ray Fischer
> "5668 Dead, 811 since 1/20/09"
>>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0830/liberal-economists-social-security-
>>siege-democrats/
>>
>>Liberal economists say Democrats also eyeing cuts to Social Security
>>
>>By Sahil Kapur
>>Monday, August 30th, 2010 -- 8:21 am
>>
>>Prominent progressive economists are warning liberals and senior citizens
>>not to take Social Security for granted simply because Republicans are
>>out of power, arguing that structural incentives are propelling
>>Democratic leaders to support scaling back the cherished program.
>
>The Dems are the one's who have stopped the COLA for SS for two years
>as the cost of everything has shot up.
The dumbass rightard is lying again:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
Irony anyone or could ray-ray be this dumb? His own cite shows there
was no increase in 2009. There is also suspicion there won't be one
next year either.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/24/social-security-deflation-business-washington-index.html
"WASHINGTON -- Every January, Social Security payments are normally
raised as part of a routine cost of living adjustment. But with
inflation all but missing, come January 2010, retirees are unlikely to
see bigger checks. In fact, the trustees of Social Security reportedly
think that inflation may remain so low that there will be no increase
in 2011, either.
Unsurprisingly, retirees are not thrilled about this--their cost of
living, especially medical bills, is still rising."
http://seniorliving.about.com/od/socialsecurity101/a/recession_social_security.htm
"The Social Security and Medicare Trustees are predicting that you and
other Social Security beneficiaries will not receive an annual
cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in either 2010 or 2011."
Guess it's time for ray-ray to repeat his claim, call me a liar, or
slink away again...
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>The Dems are the one's who have stopped the COLA for SS for two years
>>>as the cost of everything has shot up.
>>
>>The dumbass rightard is lying again:
>>ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
>>http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html
>
>Irony anyone or could ray-ray be this dumb?
You lied. Now you're trying to blame me because you lied.
> His own cite shows there
>was no increase in 2009.
And it shows that there was no increase in the cost of living.
Do you not understand how that works, rightard liar? No increase in
the cost of living means no cost of living adjustment for Social
Security. It has nothing to do with Democrats who don't even control
SS payments. It has to do with the GOP's shit economy and criminal
incompetance.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
Guess ray-ray went with the "slink away" option....
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
NoBody
>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>The Dems are the one's who have stopped the COLA for SS for two years
>>>>as the cost of everything has shot up.
>>>
>>>The dumbass rightard is lying again:
>>>ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
>>>http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html
>>
>>Irony anyone or could ray-ray be this dumb?
>
>You lied. Now you're trying to blame me because you lied.
Not at all. You lie fine all by yourself.
>
>> His own cite shows there
>>was no increase in 2009.
>
>And it shows that there was no increase in the cost of living.
Liars figure and figures lie. You trying to tell me your taxes
haven't gone up, food prices haven't risen, and the price of virtually
everything has increased in the last two years?
>
>Do you not understand how that works, rightard liar? No increase in
>the cost of living means no cost of living adjustment for Social
>Security.
I guess you're not familiar with the concept of playing with numbers
to get the result you want....
NoBody
And ray-ray has fled from yet another thread....
>
>
Christopher Helms
The massive stack of IOUs to which you refer is, I believe, somewhere
in Maryland. FICA is nothing more than a second income tax that likes
to masquerade as a pension fund.
5689 Dead, 832 since 1/20/09
A regressive income tax, at that.
Jeffy seems to have this weird notion that bonds are something OTHER than
IOUS, or American currency. Or that the fund should be held in gold, a
substance that fluctuates in value by up to 30% in a week.
Steve
<dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
Social security isn't the least bit regressive since the benefits are
proportional to the contributions... Of course that doesn't satisfy
the parasitic leftists like Jamieson who insist that their retirement
should be funded by successful people.
Canyon asks: "So now if you're standing on a corner and
a little old granny lady walks up and out of the blue
smacks you with her cane, you have a "First Amendment
based" case because you have a right to be there. Is
that correct now?
Milt answers: Yes.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e10335045035aabe
***************************************************************
Canyon states: "Milt Shook claims that he has a First
Amendment based case if a little old lady attacks him
with her cane."
Shook replies: "Of course I do, if I'm standing on a public
street corner and not breaking any other laws doing so. I
mean, DUH."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/0954b20ab3c0a66e
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>The Dems are the one's who have stopped the COLA for SS for two years
>>>>>as the cost of everything has shot up.
>>>>
>>>>The dumbass rightard is lying again:
>>>>ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
>>>>http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html
>>>
>>>Irony anyone or could ray-ray be this dumb?
>>
>>You lied. Now you're trying to blame me because you lied.
>
>Not at all.
Then prove your claim. Prove that Democrats stopped cost of living
increases for Social Security.
>>> His own cite shows there
>>>was no increase in 2009.
>>
>>And it shows that there was no increase in the cost of living.
>
>Liars figure and figures lie.
Is that the best you've got, asshole? A childish whine?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>The Dems are the one's who have stopped the COLA for SS for two years
>>>>>>as the cost of everything has shot up.
>>>>>
>>>>>The dumbass rightard is lying again:
>>>>>ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
>>>>>http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html
>>>>
>>>>Irony anyone or could ray-ray be this dumb?
>>>
>>>You lied. Now you're trying to blame me because you lied.
>>
>>Not at all.
>
>Then prove your claim. Prove that Democrats stopped cost of living
>increases for Social Security.
>
I said for two years and here's the previously posted proof that you
fled from the first time.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/f4c7b05603eba357?dmode=source
BTW, your own cite showed there was no increase last year....
>>>> His own cite shows there
>>>>was no increase in 2009.
>>>
>>>And it shows that there was no increase in the cost of living.
>>
>>Liars figure and figures lie.
>
>Is that the best you've got, asshole? A childish whine?
Irony anyone?
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>The Dems are the one's who have stopped the COLA for SS for two years
>>>>>>>as the cost of everything has shot up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The dumbass rightard is lying again:
>>>>>>ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
>>>>>>http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Irony anyone or could ray-ray be this dumb?
>>>>
>>>>You lied. Now you're trying to blame me because you lied.
>>>
>>>Not at all.
>>
>>Then prove your claim. Prove that Democrats stopped cost of living
>>increases for Social Security.
>
>I said for two years and here's the previously posted proof that you
>fled from the first time.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/f4c7b05603eba357?dmode=source
Did you realize that you just proved yourself a rank liar? That you
even posted evidence showing that Democrats had nothing to do with the
COLA adjustment?
Here: I'll quote the article YOU cited:
with inflation all but missing, come January 2010, retirees are
unlikely to see bigger checks.
But you blamed it on Democrats, which means that you lied.
Again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
Who decided in the budget to not provide that COLA? Which party put
together and passed that budget?
Ray Fischer
NoBody
Yes, now answer the question.
5689 Dead, 832 since 1/20/09
Neither. The increases are an automatic result of the COL results for
the previous year.
Don't trust the COL stats? Well, you're not alone. But both parties
share blame for that.
Ray Fischer
Then you intentionally lied. You know that it was not Democrats at
all, but the fact that there was no increase in the cost of living.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
Who do you suppose runs the SSA and makes those calculations these
days, Republicans or Democrats? Why didn't the Dems pass an increase
when it became clear the numbers used were bogus? The cost of
everything went up, yet the SSA determined no cost of living increase
was needed because their numbers said there was no inflation. This
has caused major pain for seniors.
NoBody
Guess you didn't buy anything or pay taxes last year. The cost of
virtually everything went up, in some cases dramatically. It
benefitted the budget to say that there was no need for a COLA
increase. The funds that would have gone to the COLA instead were
spent elsewhere while seniors do without -- how democrat of you to say
Ray Fischer
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Here: I'll quote the article YOU cited:
>>>> with inflation all but missing, come January 2010, retirees are
>>>> unlikely to see bigger checks.
>>>>
>>>>But you blamed it on Democrats, which means that you lied.
>>>
>>> Who decided in the budget to not provide that COLA? Which party put
>>> together and passed that budget?
>>
>>Neither. The increases are an automatic result of the COL results for
>>the previous year.
>
>Who do you suppose runs the SSA and makes those calculations these
>days, Republicans or Democrats?
Neither. The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
> Why didn't the Dems pass an increase
>when it became clear the numbers used were bogus?
Your insanity doesn't make the number bogus.
> The cost of
>everything went up,
Cite? Evidence? Proof?
Anything at all besides paranoid kookery?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
And I'm _sure_ that you can provide some evidence to support that
claim. I'll also be interested in hearing your explanation why
the Bureau of Labor Statistics came to a different conmclusion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
5689 Dead, 832 since 1/20/09
Well, the rate fee for the 2010 SS payments was made in very early
2009.
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
NoBody
Guess Forbes made it up.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/24/social-security-deflation-business-washington-index.html
Do you pay property taxes for a home? What were the taxes last year
and what are they this year?
>I'll also be interested in hearing your explanation why
>the Bureau of Labor Statistics came to a different conmclusion.
So that Social Security need not provide a COLA? Not that far fetched
given that it is having some financial issues.
NoBody
>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "5689 Dead, 832 since 1/20/09"
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>>Here: I'll quote the article YOU cited:
>>>>> with inflation all but missing, come January 2010, retirees are
>>>>> unlikely to see bigger checks.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you blamed it on Democrats, which means that you lied.
>>>>
>>>> Who decided in the budget to not provide that COLA? Which party put
>>>> together and passed that budget?
>>>
>>>Neither. The increases are an automatic result of the COL results for
>>>the previous year.
>>
>>Who do you suppose runs the SSA and makes those calculations these
>>days, Republicans or Democrats?
>
>Neither. The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Which is run by which party?
NoBody
Did you see any other posts from me? No? That's because I wasn't
here...you idiot.
Ray Fischer
I'm not interested in your excuses for running away, rightard.
Just pointing out the fact that you run away.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> "5689 Dead, 832 since 1/20/09"
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>Here: I'll quote the article YOU cited:
>>>>>> with inflation all but missing, come January 2010, retirees are
>>>>>> unlikely to see bigger checks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But you blamed it on Democrats, which means that you lied.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who decided in the budget to not provide that COLA? Which party put
>>>>> together and passed that budget?
>>>>
>>>>Neither. The increases are an automatic result of the COL results for
>>>>the previous year.
>>>
>>>Who do you suppose runs the SSA and makes those calculations these
>>>days, Republicans or Democrats?
>>
>>Neither. The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
>
>Which is run by which party?
It's not run by any party, rightard dumbass.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
I guess you didn't read your own cite, dumbass.
>http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/24/social-security-deflation-business-washington-index.html
with inflation all but missing, come January 2010, retirees are
unlikely to see bigger checks.
No inflation means no cost of living increase means no adjustment.
>>I'll also be interested in hearing your explanation why
>>the Bureau of Labor Statistics came to a different conmclusion.
>
>So that Social Security need not provide a COLA?
Oh, so you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
Kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
If I wasn't posting anywhere, then I wasn't "running". I was simply
doing other things in life other than posting on Usenet. You however
selectively seem to choose which posts you see.
NoBody
http://www.bls.gov/bls/blsmissn.htm
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor
is the principal Federal agency...."
Who do you think picks the people to run these high level government
jobs?
NoBody
Guess you didn't read it either:
"Unsurprisingly, retirees are not thrilled about this--their cost of
living, especially medical bills, is still rising."
If their cost of living isn't rising, how can it be rising?
>
>>>I'll also be interested in hearing your explanation why
>>>the Bureau of Labor Statistics came to a different conmclusion.
>>
>>So that Social Security need not provide a COLA?
>
>Oh, so you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
No, merely a simple way to save money at the expense of others and
make things look better than they really are, just like "saved or
created" jobs.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffy seems to have this weird notion that bonds are something OTHER than
>IOUS, or American currency. Or that the fund should be held in gold, a
>substance that fluctuates in value by up to 30% in a week.
Even if it lost money at least there would still be some money.
JSL
NoBody
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
NoBody
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
NoBody
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
So claims the magazine.
>>>>I'll also be interested in hearing your explanation why
>>>>the Bureau of Labor Statistics came to a different conmclusion.
>>>
>>>So that Social Security need not provide a COLA?
>>
>>Oh, so you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
>
>No,
No?
> merely a simple way to save money at the expense of others and
>make things look better than they really are,
So you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
NoBody
Logic leave you (again..) ray-ray? I wasn't here to post. How is
that running? If you can find a post from me during the time you
claim I was "running", you'd have a point. As it it stands you don't
(again...).
NoBody
No just logical (you should try it ray-ray). The party in power makes
high level government appointments and declaring there was no actual
cost of living saves money from SS.
NoBody
So can claim anyone with two eyes who pay their own bills.
>
>>>>>I'll also be interested in hearing your explanation why
>>>>>the Bureau of Labor Statistics came to a different conmclusion.
>>>>
>>>>So that Social Security need not provide a COLA?
>>>
>>>Oh, so you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
>>
>>No,
>
>No?
Nope.
>
>> merely a simple way to save money at the expense of others and
>>make things look better than they really are,
>
>So you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
>
Not what I said at all.
>Kook.
Irony anyone?
Ray Fischer
Because it's SO logical to assume that thousands of federal employees
were fired when Obama took office, their replacements started lying
about the actual numbers, and nobody reported anything to the media.
You're a paranoid crackpot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Yes.
>>> merely a simple way to save money at the expense of others and
>>>make things look better than they really are,
>>
>>So you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
>>
>Not what I said at all.
It is. You claim that the BLS lied about the actual numbers, and that
none of the hundreds of people involved said anything to the media.
That's a government conspiracy to hide the facts, and it's all yours.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
Where did I say that? I referred to the higher-ups who set policy.
>You're a paranoid crackpot.
Irony anyone?
NoBody
>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>I'll also be interested in hearing your explanation why
>>>>>>>the Bureau of Labor Statistics came to a different conmclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So that Social Security need not provide a COLA?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, so you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>>No,
>>>
>>>No?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>Yes.
Nope.
>
>>>> merely a simple way to save money at the expense of others and
>>>>make things look better than they really are,
>>>
>>>So you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
>>>
>>Not what I said at all.
>
>It is. You claim that the BLS lied about the actual numbers, and that
>none of the hundreds of people involved said anything to the media.
>
>That's a government conspiracy to hide the facts, and it's all yours.
I don't recalling saying BLS lied but one can make numbers say
anything you want them to (like the infamous "saved or created"
nonsense).
NoBody
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
NoBody
Dishonest snippage that leads to <ray-ray crickets.wav>.
znuybv
<dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0830/liberal-economists-social-security-
> siege-democrats/
>
> Liberal economists say Democrats also eyeing cuts to Social Security
>
> By Sahil Kapur
> Monday, August 30th, 2010 -- 8:21 am
>
> Prominent progressive economists are warning liberals and senior citizens
> not to take Social Security for granted simply because Republicans are
> out of power, arguing that structural incentives are propelling
> Democratic leaders to support scaling back the cherished program.
>
It's the young people that get screwed.
Sid9
"znuybv" <tjwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7395d3ec-a4b6-42b6...@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
.
Bullshit.
The SS system is sound.
Minor adjustments need to be made
They will be made.
znuybv
> "znuybv" <tjwil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Sound for the recipients but not the contributors.
Just like all Ponzi schemes.
Sid9
.
$3.5 trillion in the trust fund. Sound by any description.
liberal
That 3.5 trillion is in the form of Treasury bills. And the White
House is projecting $500 billion deficits for the next ten years.
Sid9
"liberal" <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:132cb535-418f-4ada...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
.
Got any Treasuries you'd like to sell at a discount?
rocket empire
Yours.
> The SS system is sound.
If by broke you mean sound:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html
Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year
Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would
pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point —
the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress
strengthens the program’s finances.
“When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut
benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social
Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s,
said on Wednesday.
> Minor adjustments need to be made
"Minor"?
"Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s projection shows the ravages
of the recession easing in the next few years, with small surpluses
reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.
After that, demographic forces are expected to overtake the fund, as
more and more baby boomers leave the work force, stop paying into the
program and start collecting their benefits. At that point, outlays will
exceed revenue every year, no matter how well the economy performs.
Mr. Greenspan recalled in an interview that the sour economy of the late
1970s had taken the program close to insolvency when the commission he
led set to work in 1982. It had no contingency reserve then, and the
group had to work quickly. He said there were only three choices: raise
taxes, lower benefits or bail out the program by tapping general revenue."
> They will be made.
Find yourself some cheaper cat food to eat.
"Mr. Greenspan said that the same three choices exist today — though
there is more time now for the painful deliberations.
“Even if the trust fund level goes down, there’s no action required,
until the level of the trust fund gets to zero,” he said. “At that
point, you have to cut benefits, because benefits have to equal receipts.”
znuybv
LOL!
znuybv
> "liberal" <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
TB's are not credits. They are debits.
To the government the TB is an IOU.
Your SS trust fund has $3.5T in IOU's by the same gov. that owes the
money.
Write yourself a $1m IOU and consider yourself a millionaire.
Do you get it? If you own the TB it's a credit. To the gov. it's a
debit.
You gotta stop using the Obama accounting system.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Their isn't any money in the trust fund.
If you think there is why don't you loan yourself a couple of million
and tell us how much money you have.
JSL
Sid9
"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:4c8987ec...@news.wowway.com...
.
The SS Trust fund owns Treasury bonds.
If you own any and think they're worthless offer them at a discount.
I'm sure you'll have no problem finding buyers for what you deem worthless
Otherwise you are repeating a Republican lie designed to destroy SS.
Ray Fischer
When you claim that the BLS puts out fake numbers.
> I referred to the higher-ups who set policy.
And nobody who works under them reports anything to the media.
That's an idiot conspiracy theory.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 09 Sep 2010 16:52:54 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>I'll also be interested in hearing your explanation why
>>>>>>>>the Bureau of Labor Statistics came to a different conmclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So that Social Security need not provide a COLA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, so you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
>>>>>
>>>>>No,
>>>>
>>>>No?
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>Yes.
>
>Nope.
Crackpot.
>>>>> merely a simple way to save money at the expense of others and
>>>>>make things look better than they really are,
>>>>
>>>>So you say it's all a vast government conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>Not what I said at all.
>>
>>It is. You claim that the BLS lied about the actual numbers, and that
>>none of the hundreds of people involved said anything to the media.
>>
>>That's a government conspiracy to hide the facts, and it's all yours.
>
>I don't recalling saying BLS lied
Yes you do.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
There is no ponzi scheme and it's only mindless rightard idiots
parroting wingnut propaganda who claim that it is.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
NoBody
Show me where I said that.
NoBody
As I stated, one can make numbers say anything you want them to. I
don't recall saying anything about "fake" numbers.
>
>> I referred to the higher-ups who set policy.
>
>And nobody who works under them reports anything to the media.
>That's an idiot conspiracy theory.
Why would they?
Ray Fischer
Of course you can lie. You do it all the time. Don't assume that
everybody is like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
Still waiting for you to cite a single lie on my part...
NoBody
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
NoBody
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
Jeffrey Scott Linder
The government bought special issue bonds that the government issues
and that no one else can buy.
>If you own any and think they're worthless offer them at a discount.
Loan yourself a million dollars and tell us how that works out.
>I'm sure you'll have no problem finding buyers for what you deem worthless
I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing your accountant that you're
now a millioniare.
>Otherwise you are repeating a Republican lie designed to destroy SS.
Destroy? You talk as if SS isn't already in deep doodoo.
JSL
>
>