President Approval: 43.5% vs. 50.5% Disapproval
Consensus from Real Clear Politics. The -7% spread (43.5% approve - 50.5% disapprove) is the widest since November 2009.
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Monday, August 22, 2011
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Jon Stewart: Media Pretend Ron Paul Doesn't Exist
- Some Get Married for Money. Others Get Married for...
- Tax Tip for Warren Buffett, and Wouldn't His 2010 ...
- Markets in Everything: Orbiting Space Hotel
- Why BMW Picked South Carolina: No Auto Culture
- July Chicago Fed National Activity Index Improves
- More on the Failure to Pass the FTAs
- College Professors: Get Out While You Can
- Kids Arrested in DC on Lemonade Freedom Day
- Chart of the Day: Transfer Payments
138 Comments:
That's the thanks he gets from saving us from the Bush economy and bestowing upon us free health care.
speaking of....
George "Deficits don't matter" Bush:
... "Mr. Bush's final approval rating at 22 percent.
Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years."
LORD!
His father George H.W.(read my lips) Bush had an end-of-term rating of 54 percent, while Jimmy Carter's rating was 44 percent.
Harry Truman had previously had the lowest end-of-term approval at 32 percent, as measured by Gallup.
"
" Only 6 percent of Democrats approve of the job he has done as president, while 57 percent of Republicans approve. Eighteen percent of independents approve.
Interestingly, Mr. Bush also has the distinction of having the highest approval rating for a president, as well as the lowest. "
REAGAN 1/89
Approve 68%
Disapprove 26%
Don't Know/NA 6%
CLINTON 2/01
Approve 68%
Disapprove 30%
Don't Know/NA 2%
ROOSEVELT 12/43
Approve 66%
Disapprove 24%
Don't Know/NA 10%
EISENHOWER 12/60
Approve 59%
Disapprove 27%
Don't Know/NA 14%
KENNEDY 11/63
Approve 58%
Disapprove 30%
Don't Know/NA 12%
"... "Mr. Bush's final approval rating at 22 percent."
Without defending Bush, it's worth pointing out the extremely obvious that it took him 8 years to get down there. Obama's cratering is at the 2 1/2 yr mark.
That said, I dont think Obama's approval will go much lower. There are too many parasites and knuckleheads who will support him no matter how much devastation he
unloads on America.
Reagan's low number was 35%
Larry,
I don't understand your point.
W Bush should have had an end of term approval in the single digits....what does that have to do with Obama?
Truman was 32% and there was nobody at the train station in Independence, MO to greet him when he cam home. Now he's looked back on as being pretty strong. Is that the point? We'll all look back in 60 years and think all of this idiocy was pretty good?
"what's the point"
that Bush crapped up the country royally ... and the best the Elephant clan could do for an encore was McCain.. and now look at who's in the run to replace Obama.
Even if the Republicans win.. we lose .....again....
eh?
so what are you wishing for?
"so what are you wishing for?"
Well, unfortunately, I agree with what you said. I'll assume that we will disagree about the amount we will lose if a decent republican replaces Obama before he completely breaks us.
But, to answer your question, I suppose (as a Texan) the most I could wish for would be secession.
I just didn't understand where you were going with the numbers comparison.....seems to be completely irrelevant.
the numbers... we have a ways to go yet...
RR was below 40 at one point....and Clinton was close to Obama...
Unfortunately or fortunately depending on one's point of view - if the economy improves.. Obama will get a 2nd term and if it does not, he'll be out like Carter was.
there are no Republicans save perhaps Romney who are capable actually running the country.
Although since you are from the big T .. what' your opinion of Perry? Can he run the country?
"Although since you are from the big T .. what' your opinion of Perry? Can he run the country?"
I just moved from Texas, so I'll weigh in with a "why not?" He couldn't be any worse than the Manchurian President currently residing in the White House. His record in Texas is pretty stellar. Texas leads the nation in job creation. Texas' bond rating actually improved under Perry. He's not perfect, but he's a fan of private enterprise, likes drilling for oil, wants to make the federal government as "inconsequential as possible." The country could do worse, and it did in 2008.
Larry,
I don't think it's the numbers, rather the slide of numbers. You brought up GHW Bush...in less than a year that guy went from the 80's to the 30's.
Rick Perry troubles me. This is more gut than fact. Some of his economic ideas used to confuse me until I took the time to try to understand them. I have come away thinking that his policies (for the most part) have been very forward thinking, to the point of angering those who don't understand the success stories behind them from other places.
I have to admit, this only my take on him as a man, but I just think he is (personally) a bit of a fraud. I don't like him and I don't really know why. Maybe he's just not as good an actor as the rest...but he seems shady to me. I really don't like the 'day of prayer' stuff he likes to do. I don't believe that's the place of the governor.
That said, I'd still vote for him over Obama.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Republicans not only failed to defend the Bush record, they also failed to explain how the Democrats created the economic conditions that lead to the financial crisis.
People forget Bush inherited the worst stock market crash since the Great Depression (from 2000-02).
Yet, the 2001 recession was so mild, it wasn't a recession based on annual real per capita GDP growth (because of the Greenspan Fed and Bush tax cuts).
After a record 10-year economic expansion in the '90s and a structural bull market from 1982-00, the U.S. had the greatest years of prosperity from 2002-07.
U.S. corporations had a record 20 consecutive quarters of double-digit earnings growth, two million houses a year were built, 16 million autos per year were sold, U.S. real GDP expanded 3% annually, in spite of 6% annual current account deficits (which subtract from GDP).
The U.S. economy was most efficient, while Americans stocked-up on real assets and goods, and capital was built-up.
The Bush Administration was adept at minimizing the recession in 2008, including providing a tax cut in early '08 for the Fed to catch-up easing the money supply, until Lehman failed in Sep '08, which caused the economy to fall off a cliff. However, appropriate policy adjustments were implemented quickly.
If Bush could've been reelected in 2008, we would've had a V-shaped economic recovery, much like the Reagan recovery after the severe recession from 1982-83.
I agree with Krugman that a housing boom was needed to raise actual output towards potential output.
However, once the country was at full employment, around 2004, lending standards should've been slowly tightened to sustain the economic expansion and prevent the financial crisis.
Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years Ago
CBS News
February 19, 2009
Karl Rove, “We were briefed as far back as 2001 about the problems with Fannie and Freddie; in fact, we moved aggressively in 2004 to regulate Fannie and Freddie, actually got a bill through the Senate Banking and Finance Committee only to have it filibustered by [Sen.] Chris Dodd.”
Rove said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “accelerated their imprudent behavior after we attempted to regulate them. They bought almost as much mortgage debt from 2005 through 2008” as they bought in their first 30 years of their existence.
“In fact, in 2003, when we sent our first members of the Cabinet up to talk about this on Capitol Hill, Barney Frank had a hearing in which they basically beat up everybody we sent up there in pretty vociferous language. This is the famous hearing where one of the Democratic members literally says that he is ‘pissed off’ that the administration is even raising this issue,” Rove said.
Karl Rove is an appropriate "denier" of George "deficits don't matter" Bush responsibility.
you can't have two wars and cut taxes and then express surprise at the resulting fiscal damage...
Republicans of the past would have supported the wars and at the same time told the American people that we had to pay for them.
Instead, the idiots CUT taxes !!
when you own the Presidency and both houses of Congress.. crap up the budget and then blame individual minority legislators... for what you chose not to do... at the same time you were pushing other things like tax cuts through Congress... well...
I note that George Bush's own home state of Texas knew what to do about the mortgage industry and they did not wait for Bush the fool to act or make excuses why he could not...
" mortgage lenders in Texas are tightly regulated, which prevented abuses that were prevalent in many parts of the country. Taken together, the regulations helped keep Texas housing prices in check.
“Because of early and robust regulation, we never had that disconnect between incomes and home prices that you saw elsewhere at the height of the housing bubble,” said Douglas B. Foster, commissioner of the Texas Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending. “So there was no need for exotic mortgage products.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/perry-criticizes-government-while-texas-job-growth-benefits-from-it/2011/08/18/gIQAPPZQSJ_story_2.html
"Texas Like Vermont, Texas has some of the strictest mortgage regulations on the books. No prepayment penalties, no balloon mortgages, etc., and as a result of the Homestead Act of 1839 and subsequent laws strict rules on Home Equity Loans (pdf).
I mentioned earlier in the year, that these consumer protection laws may have played a major role in keeping Texas from having a major housing bubble. I did not know at the time that there was a study at the Dallas Federal Reserve, Why Texas Feels Less Subprime Stress than U.S., that also came to the same conclusion:
Due to the state’s strong predatory lending laws and restrictions on mortgage equity withdrawals, a smaller share of Texas’ subprime loans involve cash-out refinancing, which reduces homeowner equity and makes default more likely when mortgage payments become unaffordable…"
http://baselinescenario.com/2009/08/18/vermont-texas-and-subprime-loans/
so the Bush and Rove idiots were already familiar with how Texas handled mortgage regulation and yet they say they were helpless in doing anything about it because of individual minority congressmen?
this typifies the Republican approach to governance no days - shirk responsibility for the problem and blame others.
Larry, the budget deficit was $161 billion in 2007.
Much of the U.S. military is financed by our trading partners through inflation, low interest rates, and currency exchange rates of the world's reserve currency.
Why are you blaming Bush for wanting to prevent the housing bubble, which was blocked by Democrats in Congress?
"Much of the U.S. military is financed by our trading partners through inflation, low interest rates, and currency exchange rates of the world's reserve currency."
huh? how so?
"Why are you blaming Bush for wanting to prevent the housing bubble, which was blocked by Democrats in Congress?"
because as has been amply pointed out there was a wide variety of ways to rein in Fannie/Freddie besides the one path and if Bush really wanted to do it - he could have done much, much more than what he did - as demonstrated by the tighter regulations in Texas.
the truth is this.
Bush and the Republicans are anti-regulation....
they see regulation as wrong and harming economic activity so they were fundamentally opposed to more/further mortgage regulation but they needed a whipping boy to cover their hypocritical stance so they blamed others for what they actually refused to do themselves.
If Tom DeLay can ram through a vote at 3am on Prescription Drugs- I think he could have done the same with Fannie/Freddie and other restrictions if the Republicans really wanted to.
Like I said.. when their attitude was that we could get into two wars but did not have to pay for them... and, in fact, we could cut taxes...
... is when things started to go sideways...
.. and it continues.....with the Republicans
advocate irresponsible policies but blame others when they blow up.
The World’s Reserve Currency
October 3, 2007
A country whose currency is the predominant reserve currency benefits tremendously.
In the case of the dollar, the U.S. benefits from the increased demand for the dollar that the reserve currency status creates.
Other countries give the U.S. valuable goods in exchange for dollars issued by the Federal Reserve.
They also lend the dollars they’ve accumulated back to the U.S. at low interest rates.
Most significantly, the U.S. benefits from importing these goods and exporting its inflation to other countries in the form of depreciating dollars.
in other words the 1.5 trillion deficit and 14+ trillion debt that the Republicans are saying requires entitlements to be cut - instead of DOD?
so it's okay to have a 1.5 trillion deficit as long as it is for DOD?
Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001. Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's warnings:
2001
The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a
large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
2002
The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance
principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
2003
Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a
new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
Etc.
the fact remains that the administration itself had options that did not require Congress to act.
Bush & the Republicans were and still are fundamentally opposed to regulations and they proved it by opposing them as reforms after the meltdown and continue to oppose them now.
their MO is to oppose regulations then show they "tried", then run away and blame others when the lack of regulation blows up on them.
when you have the Presidency and both houses of Congress and you claim that one minority party politician "stopped" them from taking steps to rein in Fannie/Freddie it reeks of hypocrisy when coming form a party that has a demonstrated track record of being opposed to regulation.
Larry, the world doesn't get anything for financing our welfare state, but it gets something for financing our military.
so you're okay with the 1.5 trillion deficit and 14+ trillion debt as a result of letting other nations "finance" our military?
how does this work long term?
Larry, you can say that now, but Bush wasn't a dictator like Obama.
Larry, I'm ok with a strong U.S. military, not $1.5 trillion annual budget deficits.
Even today, the U.S. spends a smaller percentage of GDP on the military than the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
" I'm ok with a strong U.S. military, not $1.5 trillion annual budget deficits."
have you seen a plan that cuts the deficit and not cut the military (which now consumes twice as much budget as it did in 2001)?
why is DOD not a giant welfare system for folks who can't find a job other than as a soldier or civilian DOD?
percent of GDP - got numbers?
here's mine:
Year GDP-US Defense %gdp
2001 10286.2 366.63 .0356
2002 10642.3 422.18 a
2003 11142.1 484.17 a
2004 11867.8 544.08 a
2005 12638.4 601.27 a
2006 13398.9 622.22 a
2007 14077.6 653.67 a
2008 14369.1 730.67 a
2009 14119 794.94 e
2010 14660.4 848.11 .0578
2011 15079.6 965.85 g
2012 15812.5 926.38 .0586
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2001_2012&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=30-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s#usgs101
why must you lie guy?
Larry, go back to what I wrote and then come up with the right answer next time.
so peak you're in favor of spending money on the military, money that we have to borrow and owe to other countries to the tune of 1.5 trillion annually?
did I read that correctly?
I think it would be one thing if they agreed to PAY for our military but loaning us money that we have to pay back - at the rate of 1.5 trillion a year more than we can pay back?
and we have a military that costs more than the next 10 in the world COMBINED?
see this is why Republicans have no common sense guy.
in the real world they are total idiots.. who are completely out of touch with fundamental fiscal realities... even since the terror attacks.
this is why Bush ended up in the toilet... it just made no sense what he was supporting...in terms of fiscal realities...
and it continues....
same theories.. same beliefs.. totally disconnected from the real world...
" Even today, the U.S. spends a smaller percentage of GDP on the military than the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s"
yep.. we saw that but ignored it because it was so disingenuous and ignores the reality that the DOD budget has more than doubled in a decade... and as a result we are now borrowing 1.5 trillion a year to help pay for it......
but it's "ok" because other countries are loaning us the money...
Larry, foreigners are losing money financing our military, through inflation, interest rates, and currency exchange rates.
The U.S. will continue to consume more than produce, while the dollar is the world's reserve currency, which is supported by the world's strongest military.
" Larry, foreigners are losing money financing our military, through inflation, interest rates, and currency exchange rates"
even if in doing so it adds 1.5 trillion a year to our debt?
I've yet to see ANY budget proposal that balances the budget with cuts only to entitlements.
Neither deficit commission nor Ron Paul.
Ryans proposal is more Republican voodoo economics...
he thinks we can reach balance in 2030 by growing our way to more revenues (supply side idiocy) ... that assumes a 3% unemployment rate.
and the total hypocrisy of saying that we have a "spending" problem but instead of cutting expenditures in a realistic way that gets us to balance in 5 or 10 years (like Ron Pauls budget)... he is expecting EVEN MORE REVENUES for DOD.
this is what I mean when I say the Republicans are totally out of touch with common sense and fiscal responsibility....
supply-side economics, coupled with an irrational belief that the unemployment rate can ever be 3% ... 25 years to reach balance (which means the 14_ trillion debt will double or triple)....
and these are the folks who bill themselves as fiscal conservatives...
larry-
you are just making up data.
here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
defense spend, (which i still believe we can cut) is lower now as a % of GDP than in 40's, 50's 60's 70's or 80's and about the same as the 90's.
it's healthcare spend that is up 50% as a % of GDP since 1990.
the other big growth area:
transfers to state and local.
regarding your unfounded criticisms of supply side, there, you are just being insane.
reganomics worked.
we got good growth and higher revenues.
hausers law shows us that federal receipts are 19% or GDP +/- 1% with strong mean reversion.
no one since ww2 has been able to increase that rate, thus, all you can do is increase growth to make it 19% of a bigger number.
there is nothing "voodoo" about increasing growth to increase prosperity and thereby government receipts.
your side of this argument was very vocal in the early 80's too. then 20 years of prosperity proved you wrong.
Larry,
"I've yet to see ANY budget proposal that balances the budget with cuts only to entitlements."
So who is proposing that? We need to cut entitlements alongside everything else.
"this is what I mean when I say the Republicans are totally out of touch with common sense and fiscal responsibility...."
And the Democrats are what? Hard nosed realists? At least the GOP is trying to cut spending. Obama and the Democrats are telling everyone we can fix it all by taxing corporate jet owners, evil oil companies, and the people who provide the jobs for everyone else.
Larry,
"when you have the Presidency and both houses of Congress and you claim that one minority party politician "stopped" them from taking steps to rein in Fannie/Freddie it reeks of hypocrisy when coming form a party that has a demonstrated track record of being opposed to regulation."
Fannie and Freddie are government created Frankensteins. You appear to recognize the ideological bent of the GOP, so why, if they were unable to slay the beasts, would Republicans have a problem putting the monsters in a cage? I'm glad you are at least recognizing the housing crisis was created by the government. You are saying here in this thread that the GOP didn't work hard enough to defuse the timebombs put in place by Democrats.
I'll go along with that.
In 2007, the U.S. had a strong military with a $161 billion budget deficit. What's changed?:
1. The inevitable government funding of a huge unfunded social program (in housing), which spun out of control.
2. The failure of government to create a V-shaped economic recovery, in spite of massive increases in spending and enormous help from the Fed.
According to Krugman, if the recovery was similar to the Reagan recovery, the U.S. would've produced $2.9 trillion of additional real output through 2011, which would've generated tax revenue and reduced spending, e.g. for food stamps.
Instead, real GDP remains below 2007 real GDP, while federal spending is $1.1 trillion higher this year than in 2007.
The country is now in a weak position. All we can do now is hope or pray.
morg -
Year GDP-US Defense %gdp
2001 10286.2 366.63 .0356
2002 10642.3 422.18 a
2003 11142.1 484.17 a
2004 11867.8 544.08 a
2005 12638.4 601.27 a
2006 13398.9 622.22 a
2007 14077.6 653.67 a
2008 14369.1 730.67 a
2009 14119 794.94 e
2010 14660.4 848.11 .0578
2011 15079.6 965.85 g
2012 15812.5 926.38 .0586
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2001_2012&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=30-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s#usgs101
" reganomics worked."
define "worked"...
I don't dispute that SOME revenues accrue but do MORE revenues accrue than revenue lost..???
and MORE IMPORTANT -
what is Plan B is supply side fails to wipe out an annual deficit like 1.5 trillion?
what do you do then?
It's pretty clear what the feckless Republicans did when their tax cuts failed to generate ENOUGH addition revenues to deal with the deficit...
they just walked away ...
totally irresponsible...
they DOUBLED the debt and left a 1.5 trillion annual deficit all the while yammering about a "spending" problem.
yup.. the DOD budget DOUBLED from 2001 to 2010.. and yet WHERE are the proposed DOD cuts from those who say we have a "spending" problem?
AWOL.
no proposed cuts... zilch... even though we doubled DOD and now have a structural 1.5 trillion deficit.
I call that hypocrisy.
blaming the Dems is a joke because the Dems are not the ones who claimed to be fiscal conservatives to start with.
The ones who CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives advocate idiotic and irresponsible tax cut policies then blather on about "cuts" that they won't specify beyond entitlements and then they evade accountability for their feckless behavior by trying to blame others.
Larry, I suggest you change the settings on your link from billions of dollars to percent of GDP, and change the start year from 2001 to 1950. Then look at the chart.
Spending 4% to 5% of GDP on defense is historically low, since 1950, and seems reasonable.
Of course, it's better to expand the economy at a faster rate to reach full employment, and then maintain sustainable growth.
Also, it should be noted, the U.S. had a "peace dividend" in the '90s after we won the Cold War.
@peak -
here's the reality guy:
2010 - DOD budget = 848.11
2010 - total income tax revenues =
1.3 trillion
difference = 454 billion ( to fund entitlements and everything else).
your percent of GDP FAILS to see the realities here
"I don't dispute that SOME revenues accrue but do MORE revenues accrue than revenue lost..???"
yes.
yes by a landslide.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5728
here's hausers law.
as you can see, tax revenues as a % of GDp were flat across the 80's.
they have been stunningly flat for 60 years.
changes in top marginal tax rates have no effect.
look at the chart.
this % is just a fact. it's a remarkably stable equilibrium.
to grow government revs, you have to grow GDP.
you cannot do it with incremental tax rates on the wealthy.
US GDP more than doubled from 1980 to 1990 (2.7tn to 5.8tn). that means tax revenues did too.
that seems quite successful to me.
if we'd had that kind of growth from 2000, GDP would be 21tn, not 14. and federal revs would be 50% higher.
the bush tax cuts were performing just fine until the financial crisis (brought on by the dems through the CRA and freddy and fannie). fed income as a % of gdp in 2006 was exactly the same as in 1999 or 1980.
you are misapportioning the blame there.
the bottom line is that if you want more government revenue, you need GDP growth.
look at the graph. the dips come in recessions.
DOD spending is low as a % of GDP by historical US standards.
you are continuing to ignore that fact.
it's not where it was in the 1980'as and nothing like the 50's and 60's.
i'm not saying it can't be cut, but it's not the thing that's been exploding, healthcare is.
go back and look at the charts from my 10.37 post.
current milspend as % of GDP is about the same as the middle of the 90's.
you are just cherry picking a start point.
it's healthcare spending that has doubled as a % of GDP.
larry-
you have argued before that entitlements are supposed to be self funding with fica.
now suddenly you argue it's income tax?
you are just being disingenuous.
" "I don't dispute that SOME revenues accrue but do MORE revenues accrue than revenue lost..???"
yes.
yes by a landslide"
then why did we double the debt under Bush?
how can you reconcile the tax cuts when we had a structural deficit that continued year after year?
what is your plan B when the tax cuts do not generate sufficient additional revenues to prevent a structural deficit?
that's the essential question and the folks who advocate supply side have no answer.. other than "oh well, it's the other side's fault anyhow".
Even Ronald Reagans supply-side guru Stockman says that the ultimate test is where or not you end up with a deficit - and what you do about it ....
the supply siders simply disavow the realities ...
Larry, federal spending is 25% of GDP:
Federal spending 2007: $2.73 trillion.
Federal revenue 2007: $2.57 trillion.
Budget deficit 2007: $161 billion.
Federal spending 2011: $3.82 trillion.
Federal revenue 2011: $2.17 trillion
Budget deficit 2011: $1.65 trillion.
(2011 estimates)
also note:
current growth is even lower that it looks compared to GDP.
in 1992, they changed the CPI calculation. this flowed through to the GDP deflator.
real GDP growth would be a couple points lower a year if we still calculated it the way we did in the 80s'.
that was very successful time.
now, we just print money, run up debt, and pretend there's no inflation.
the fact is that we have never really recovered from the .com bubble, just inflated repeated new ones.
greenspan bears the blame for this as much as anyone, though bernanke seems to be trying to do even more harm (and will given time) but alan really got the ball rolling.
it's healthcare spending that has doubled as a % of GDP.
AND...DOD
BOTH OF THEM HAVE
but again - the essential question is what do you do when the tax cuts do not generate sufficient revenues to not have a structural deficit.
you can't keep saying "it works" when the reality is - structural deficits.
you say cut spending but you don't present a viable plan for cuts.
total entitlements (paid by non-FICA revenues) are only about 1/2 of the structural deficit.
how do you take care of the other half? (assuming you could zero the entire amount of entitlements - NOT!)
this is where the supply siders and Republicans part company with simple realities and enter the realm of the non-real world....
Republicans have abandoned their fiscal conservative culture and opted for totally irresponsible and disingenuous ideas... about budgets and deficits...
it's healthcare spending that has doubled as a % of GDP.
AND...DOD
BOTH OF THEM HAVE
but again - the essential question is what do you do when the tax cuts do not generate sufficient revenues to not have a structural deficit.
you can't keep saying "it works" when the reality is - structural deficits.
you say cut spending but you don't present a viable plan for cuts.
total entitlements (paid by non-FICA revenues) are only about 1/2 of the structural deficit.
how do you take care of the other half? (assuming you could zero the entire amount of entitlements - NOT!)
this is where the supply siders and Republicans part company with simple realities and enter the realm of the non-real world....
Republicans have abandoned their fiscal conservative culture and opted for totally irresponsible and disingenuous ideas... about budgets and deficits...
" you have argued before that entitlements are supposed to be self funding with fica.
now suddenly you argue it's income tax?"
nope.
I said that you have to differentiate between what entitlements are funded from FICA and which ones are not.
and you guys totally screw this up - EVERY TIME.
The entitlements that are funded from FICA are in a very small deficit - due to the 2% FICA reduction....
the entitlements that are funded from income taxes ARE Fair Game in the budget discussions.
we take in about 1.3 trillion in income taxes - not 2.x number.
when you subtract out the FICA (which cannot be used for general revenues) - you end up with 1.3 trillion to fund gen govt, income-tax-funded entitlements and DOD.
you need to work off of those numbers if you want to realistically discuss the budget and deficit.
To this point - FICA/SS has not contributed to the defict/debt and in fact has generated a 2.1 trillion surplus.
What HAS contributed to the 1.5 trillion deficit and 14 trillion debt is:
DOD - doubled in 10 years
Medicare Part A - 210 billion
MedicAid - 500 billion
rest of govt.
how are you going to get 1.5 trillion in cuts ?
You'd have to cut EVERYTHING by about 50% - MedicareB/MedicAid, DOD, and general govt.
you can't get there from here.
oops.. Medicare Part B
Part A is funded from FICA
Part B is funded from income taxes
Parts C/D - funded from income taxes.
to understand the entitlements that are a legitimate issue with respect to general revenues -
you need to be able to name the specific entitlements and how much they cost.
I've not seen anyone here name those entitlements and their respective costs.
According to Morganovich, the U.S. has been in recession or near recession, since 1992, even when the country was at full employment and beyond full employment, e.g. the late '90s, when firms were hiring bag ladies and guys sleeping in parks.
peak-
no. that's not true.
my argument is that we have been in or near recession from 2000 until now.
we were ok in the 90's as we rode the continuing wave of the 80's, but the loose money of the 90's fed an epic bubble, and we have never let it correct.
the fed just prints money.
we traded an easy bubble (equity funded productive assets) for a hard one (debt funded non productive assets). we ran up unprecedented amounts of consumer debt. now we are fueling a huge federal debt bubble that could be ruinous. 10%+ deficits, swelling debt, and no GDP growth is how you become argentina and the dollar becomes so much toilet paper.
are you seriously going to argue that people felt better off in 2007 than 1999?
were they in less debt? nope.
richer. nope.
fast forward to now and they are way off 1999.
sorry, but there was just no real growth in the last decade. it was just bubbles, debt, and fiddled statistics.
according the the BLS we were growing nicely in 2002-3. think back.
you know anyone who felt that way?
larry-
medicare part B is was never intended to be funded by income taxes.
it is deducted from your social security payment and was supposed to be covered by FICA.
the fact that its costs have overrun so terribly means it takes money from elsewhere, but really, you need to count that as debt/deficit funded, not income tax.
" medicare part B is was never intended to be funded by income taxes.
it is deducted from your social security payment and was supposed to be covered by FICA."
Morg - it was created SUBSEQUENT to Part A and was explicitly NOT funded from FICA.
You can have the Part B deducted from your SS benefits but you can also pay your premiums separately as many do.
The more important thing to note is that not a penny comes from FICA payroll deductions.
25% of Part B is paid for with premiums
75% is paid for from Income Taxes.
that's the reality.
it was always intended to be funded this way.....
Part B is totally optional guy.
you are not forced to buy it.
http://medicare-medicaid.com/medicare/the-history-of-medicare-a-quick-look-at-how-it-got-started/
in any discussion about entitlements and their effect on the Federal budget - you need to understand the difference between FICA-funded entitlements and non-FICA-funded entitlements.
"..in any discussion about entitlements and their effect on the Federal budget - you need to understand the difference between FICA-funded entitlements and non-FICA-funded entitlements."
Why? Both are part of the overall federal budget that is waaayy out of whack. Both are funded out of my paycheck, who cares what line on my W-2 it came out of? I'm still out the money.
" Why? Both are part of the overall federal budget that is waaayy out of whack. Both are funded out of my paycheck, who cares what line on my W-2 it came out of? I'm still out the money. "
if you're talking about the 1.5 trillion deficit and 14 trillion debt - the FICA-funded entitlements are almost no part of them and when you talk about cutting entitlements - cutting FICA/SS won't buy you any deficit or debt reduction.
That's the big lie.
blaming the deficit and debt on any/all entitlements is misrepresenting the realities.
there may well be a debate on the concept of payroll taxes and SS but it's a separate debate ....
and doing away with FICA/SS won't change the dynamics of the EXISTING structural deficit and debt.
in order to ADDRESS the current deficit and debt -you have to know what entitlements are funded from income taxes and thus cuts to them WILL help the deficit and debt.
But the reality is that you could cut ALL the entitlements and you'd still have almost a trillion dollar deficit...
so cutting entitlements alone is not going to balance the budget - despite the propaganda to that effect.
even Ron Paul, Mr. Libertarian acknowledges the difference in the entitlements and the way they are funded.
you have to if you are going to achieve a realistic balanced budget proposal - as he has - and as none of the other "cut entitlement" crowd has bothered to do.
Ryan said "cut" entitlements but not DOD - and as a result .. his proposal does not balance the budget until 2030 and his premise is that supply side will make up the shortfall as it benefits from a 3% unemployment rate.
"so cutting entitlements alone is not going to balance the budget - despite the propaganda to that effect."
So who is making that argument? We should cut entitlements, whether FICA funded or income tax, and that will reduce the deficit. We should also cut across the board everything else. Obama should also get his vise-grip chokehold off the private sector to deal with the revenue side of the ledger.
"Ryan said "cut" entitlements but not DOD - and as a result .. his proposal does not balance the budget until 2030 and his premise is that supply side will make up the shortfall as it benefits from a 3% unemployment rate."
I support Ryan's plan because it's at least a step in the right direction. You dismiss him out of hand because he doesn't do enough, yet you hold Obama and the Democrats to zero account. These same Democrats demonize the Ryan, yet they offer no plan of their own.
And you call us hypocrites?
" "so cutting entitlements alone is not going to balance the budget - despite the propaganda to that effect."
So who is making that argument? We should cut entitlements, whether FICA funded or income tax, and that will reduce the deficit."
cutting FICA/SS will not reduce the current deficit and debt.
" I support Ryan's plan because it's at least a step in the right direction. You dismiss him out of hand because he doesn't do enough"
it doesn't do ANYTHING with the DOD budget except plan on more revenues....
when you're cutting entitlements and hoping for supply side to fund DOD instead of also cutting it - it's way more than "not enough" - it's cynical and hypocritical.
", yet you hold Obama and the Democrats to zero account."
I'm holding them to the SAME STANDARD and they are saying that EVERYTHING has to be on the table INCLUDING DOD and new revenues.
Both deficit commission proposals say the same thing.
Ron Paul says put everything on the table for cuts also.
"These same Democrats demonize the Ryan, yet they offer no plan of their own."
The Dems never claimed to be fiscal conservatives... who said they could balance the budget...
it's the Republicans who have made that claim but they don't deliver.
that's what a hypocrite is.
And you call us hypocrites?
Morganovich, U.S. living standards rose at a steeper rate in the 2002-07 bubble than in the 1995-00 bubble, from real GDP growth and larger trade deficits.
Also, U.S. net wealth at the trough in 2009 was about $10 trillion higher than at the peak in 2000. See charts at:
Americans See 18% of Wealth Vanish - WSJ
Mar 13, 2009
"cutting FICA/SS will not reduce the current deficit and debt."
Cutting Medicare and Social Security outlays WILL reduce the deficit.
"it doesn't do ANYTHING with the DOD budget except plan on more revenues...."
It relies on the expected cuts from the Obama administration. I'd cut some more, personally.
"..when you're cutting entitlements and hoping for supply side to fund DOD instead of also cutting it - it's way more than "not enough" - it's cynical and hypocritical."
It's more than Obama has offered, as even you finally had to admit. Yet, you're once again banging these drums again. Besides, as I said, Obama has also murdered the revenue side of the ledger. Call it "supply-side" if you like, but his war on capitalism has widened the deficit and increased unemployment.
"I'm holding them to the SAME STANDARD and they are saying that EVERYTHING has to be on the table INCLUDING DOD and new revenues."
Really? Which current Democrat office holder, including Obama, is saying Medicare and SS are on the table? Point to their plan.
"Both deficit commission proposals say the same thing."
Obama completely blew off the first one. I don't see him doing much on the 2nd one either.
"The Dems never claimed to be fiscal conservatives... who said they could balance the budget..."
I love how you just let the Democrats off the hook on that ludicrous basis. And then vote for them.
"cutting FICA/SS will not reduce the current deficit and debt."
Cutting Medicare and Social Security outlays WILL reduce the deficit."
tell me by how much guy... how much will the deficit be cut if we cut SS right now?
If you cut SS right now - you put FICA in surplus again.
"it doesn't do ANYTHING with the DOD budget except plan on more revenues...."
It relies on the expected cuts from the Obama administration. I'd cut some more, personally."
wait. wait. Ryan's plan EXPECTS cuts from Obama?
ha ha ha ha
how about you give me an except from Ryans plan that shows that.
my last reading indicated that he's expected supply side to keep pace with DOD spending.
"..when you're cutting entitlements and hoping for supply side to fund DOD instead of also cutting it - it's way more than "not enough" - it's cynical and hypocritical."
It's more than Obama has offered, as even you finally had to admit. Yet, you're once again banging these drums again. Besides, as I said, Obama has also murdered the revenue side of the ledger. Call it "supply-side" if you like, but his war on capitalism has widened the deficit and increased unemployment."
supply side EXPECTS MORE REVENUE guy.
that's NOT cuttting...
supply sides that expects this much additional revenue is crazy... it's worse that the Bush supply side ideas...
"I'm holding them to the SAME STANDARD and they are saying that EVERYTHING has to be on the table INCLUDING DOD and new revenues."
Really? Which current Democrat office holder, including Obama, is saying Medicare and SS are on the table? Point to their plan.
THEIR PLAN - INCLUDES cuts to DOD and NEW REVENUES.
don't you recall Mr. Cantor fleeing from the budget talks when the new revenues were brought up?
The Dems want new revenues. That's totally consistent with their position.
The Republicans say no new revenues...cuts only - but they don't show the cuts... that's hypocritical.
"Both deficit commission proposals say the same thing."
Obama completely blew off the first one. I don't see him doing much on the 2nd one either."
the path he is pursuing is along the same lines ... cuts to entitlements, DOD and new revenues...
"The Dems never claimed to be fiscal conservatives... who said they could balance the budget..."
I love how you just let the Democrats off the hook on that ludicrous basis. And then vote for them. "
The Dems think you need to cut BOTH entitlements AND DOD .. AND you need revenues consistent with what they were before.
David Stockman.. and other Ronald Reagan advisers say the same thing.
they have an approach.
the Republicans say it is wrong and that you can get there with cuts alone but they won't provide the cuts ...
they say cut entitlements only - but you can't get there by cutting entitlements only.
this perfectly describes the Republican idiots under Bush who supported 2 wars but did not want to pay for them and instead said that supply side would pay for them...
and when supply side did not pay for them..
they ran away ...blaming others...
totally disingenuous and totally dishonest and hypocritical.
the only one in the bunch who delivered is Ron Paul and his proposal got exactly 7 of his colleagues to support it.
face it guy... these folks are not delivering what they promised.
"tell me by how much guy... how much will the deficit be cut if we cut SS right now?"
Every $ we cut SS expenditures is a $ in deficit savings. Why is this difficult for you?
"how about you give me an except from Ryans plan that shows that."
I'll give you the link from the liberal leaning Politifact.
"THEIR PLAN - INCLUDES cuts to DOD and NEW REVENUES."
Oh yeah, "their" plan. The one you can't link. I guess we're back to this again. You insist there is a detailed plan, refuse to show it, yet attack Paul Ryan's plan.
Show me these super awesome plans from the guys you said aren't fiscal-conservatives-so-they-can spend-all-they-like, Larry.
You cant.
"The Dems think you need to cut BOTH entitlements AND DOD .. AND you need revenues consistent with what they were before."
Plan, Larry. Let me see the plan. Or shut up.
"David Stockman.. and other Ronald Reagan advisers say the same thing"
Name 'em. Besides the now liberal Bruce Bartlett. Name them.
"..they say cut entitlements only - but you can't get there by cutting entitlements only."
WHO is "they?" Who is saying entitlements only?? Again, names. Or is it possible you are just making shit up.
"They" "Their" "Them." They are out there, Larry. Conspiring against you. They want to take your gravy train government checks away! Here they come! Quick, hide under the couch!
" Every $ we cut SS expenditures is a $ in deficit savings"
no it's not...
cutting SS affects FICA not Income taxes...
the deficit is on the income tax funded general revenues not FICA/SS.
you could totally wipe out SS and it would virtually no impact on the deficit...
that's why I asked you to name the number ... and you cannot....
we have a 1.5 trillion deficit and I'm asking you how much of that deficit is due to SS and you give no answer...
you're as bad as the Republicans..
Obama's deficit reduction plan:
http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-Outlook/2011/04/15/Summary-of-President-Obama-Long-Term-Deficit-and-Debt-Reduction-Framework.aspx
if Obama had no plan then why did Eric Cantor run away?
look at this guy:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147287/americans-divided-ryan-obama-deficit-plans.aspx
or this:
" Obama Unveils Deficit Plan - WSJ.com"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703385404576259903446373140.html
now are you going to shut up?
" WHO is "they?" Who is saying entitlements only?? Again, names. Or is it possible you are just making shit up. "
THEY is the ENTIRE Republican Party save for Ron Paul.
You show me a single plan from the Republicans that includes more than entitlements.
" "They" "Their" "Them." They are out there, Larry. Conspiring against you. They want to take your gravy train government checks away! Here they come! Quick, hide under the couch! "
I fear not hypocrites guy.
they are unprincipled feckless ...blowhards...
they were a disaster under Bush and they have not changed....
"you could totally wipe out SS and it would virtually no impact on the deficit... "
According to the 2012 budget plan, Social Security expenditures will be around $761 billion. "No impact." I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
As for the the Obama "plan" you must have finally found by googling around, that April "framework" was abasically repackaged
version of his laughable February budget that was defeated unanimously in the Senate.
All told, Obama’s new “plan” is not a do-over at all, but merely a repackaged version of his fundamentally unserious budget proposal, the biggest difference being that he incorporated the substantial savings from the FY 2011 spending resolution that he opposed. It’s not surprising, then, that the GOP’s analysis reveals the president’s “framework” will — in accordance with the baseline established by the CBO — fail to meet its goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years, and would actually increase the deficit by $2.2 trillion.
The Paul Ryan plan, that you nitpick incessantly, does far better than that. Yet you howl that it's not good enough.
You're a partisan hack, Larry, though you pretend to be just a "whatever works" guy.
"..if Obama had no plan then why did Eric Cantor run away?"
They were negotiations, that's not a plan, as I keep pointing out. Obama wanted to add more taxes, late in the game, on people like me so freeloaders like you could snooze by the river all the live long day. Cantor walked, as he should have.
"now are you going to shut up?"
No, you've demonstrated yet again you are just a hack.
"You show me a single plan from the Republicans that includes more than entitlements."
The Paul Ryan plan cuts, among other things, farm subsidies.
Any questions?
" According to the 2012 budget plan, Social Security expenditures will be around $761 billion. "No impact." I don't think that phrase means what you think it means"
no impact to the income tax-funded general revenues budget.
this is why I ask you to define the impact if you think it has one.
and I ask you again - out of the 1.5 trillion deficit - how much of that is due to SS?
there is a number. what is it?
" As for the the Obama "plan" you must have finally found by googling around"
there is ample evidence of a deficit plan that is just as well developed or not as Ryans plan or else people like the WSJ would not be saying so.
you don't like Obama's plan.. that's fine.. but there is a plan and the fact that it's widely reported and Mr. Cantor saw it and did not like it.
" Obama wanted to add more taxes, late in the game, on people like me so freeloaders like you could snooze by the river all the live long day. Cantor walked, as he should have."
there was no "late in the game" guy.
Obama has ALWAYS said the SAME THING that BOTH deficit commissions said - that you need to cut across the board including the military and you need more revenues.
he's been totally consistent all along...
you just don't agree with it but that does not make it "no plan".
no partisan hack here...
I'll support ANY plan that cuts both entitlements AND DOD AND raises new revenue - no matter WHERE it comes from... including the two deficit commissions and even Ron Pauls plan.
My criteria is that it has to be a REAL PLAN with REAL cuts across the board AND it balances the budget in a realistic time frame not the 20-30 years that Ryan's dumb and irresponsible "plan" does.
Ryans plan DOUBLES the debt guy even as it cuts entitlements and the reason why is that you cannot balance the budget on entitlement cuts alone.
Ryan's plan is just plain ideological blather... more supply-side idiocy....
Ryan's plan is the same basic plan that Republicans had under Bush...
i.e. cut entitlements, don't cut the military and cut taxes so we get more revenues for the military.
it did not work under Bush and it won't work now.
because these idiots have no plan B if supply side fails to generate enough revenues... and which point they just walk away and blame others.
totally feckless and irresponsible.
they (including Ryan) essentially disavow the debt... they have no plan to deal with it even as they blather on about being fiscal conservatives.
"no impact to the income tax-funded general revenues budget."
You're playing with words. SS outlays are part of the overall federal budget. Reducing expenditures in that category would reduce the deficit, regardless of which line on my W-2 the tax is taken from. You cannot dispute this.
"and I ask you again - out of the 1.5 trillion deficit - how much of that is due to SS?
there is a number. what is it?"
I already showed you a few weeks ago that SS is currently running tens of billions into the red this fiscal yr, last, and probably into the future. So what? We can reduce the outlays even further and reduce the deficit.
"there is ample evidence of a deficit plan that is just as well developed or not as Ryans plan or else people like the WSJ would not be saying so."
Yeah, there's his monstrous fiscal 2012 budget that he basically copied the "framework" from, minus of course the 2011 spending resolution he opposed but then claimed as his own. That's his genius plan you are now settling on.
"My criteria is that it has to be a REAL PLAN with REAL cuts across the board AND it balances the budget in a realistic time frame not the 20-30 years that Ryan's dumb and irresponsible "plan" does.
"
And yet Obama's "plan" does none of that but you are defending it whie throwing bricks at Ryan's.
Hack.
"Ryans plan DOUBLES the debt guy even as it cuts entitlements and the reason why is that you cannot balance the budget on entitlement cuts alone."
And again, as I just showed you, he cuts more than just entitlements. Is it possible you have a serious learning disability, Larry? I get tired of correcting your inaccurate statements.
"..totally feckless and irresponsible."
Staggering. Obama initially wanted to cut NOTHING in the recent debt ceiling showdown. He will have run up more debt in 4 years than Bush ran up in all 8, yet all your ire is focused on the people who actually are trying to cut spending. Yet, you give Obama and the Democrats a pass because they forever promise to take the wealth away from people who earned it and put it in your pocket.
" You're playing with words. SS outlays are part of the overall federal budget. Reducing expenditures in that category would reduce the deficit, regardless of which line on my W-2 the tax is taken from. You cannot dispute this.
"and I ask you again - out of the 1.5 trillion deficit - how much of that is due to SS?
there is a number. what is it?"
I already showed you a few weeks ago that SS is currently running tens of billions into the red this fiscal yr, last, and probably into the future. So what? We can reduce the outlays even further and reduce the deficit. "
out of 1.5 TRILLION..right?
so the MOST you can reduce the impact of SS to the deficit is 10 of billions... which is almost solely due to the temporary 2% FICA reduction.
so after you cut the 10's of billions.. then if you cut SS even more.. what impact does that have on the defict?
ZIP! and that's because SS is funded 99% from FICA and NOT the income tax....
so it's just plain dishonest to say that cutting SS will fix the deficit...
where does the rest of the money come from to balance the budget if not from SS?
so you say cut entitlements but you don't really understand (or acknowledge) the DIFFERENCE between FICA-funded entitlements and nonFICA-funded entitlements.
there are indeed non-FICA funded entitlements to worry about but you guys focus on the WRONG ONES because you're so bound up on your partisan agenda you can't even understand the difference.
in the end - your beliefs are based on propaganda and misinformation..not facts.
" And yet Obama's "plan" does none of that but you are defending it whie throwing bricks at Ryan's"
becasue Obama's plan cuts across the board and raises new revenues SUFFICIENT to reach a balanced budget sooner rather than later and Ryan cuts entitlements but little else and won't raise new revenues and doesn't reach balance until 2030.. and at that is premised on a 3% unemployment rate to generate his bogus supply-side revenues.
it's not a real plan.
it's a cynical rehash of the same Republican blather under Bush - the same guys who insisted that tax cuts would generate enough revenues to balance the budget but instead it doubled the debt... and all they have is excuses...
and they do what Ryan does.. walk away from the debt.
Ryan's plan doubles the debt and he has no real plan for dealing with that other than his hopeful supply-side ideology.
it's total idiocy...
Obama has already said what he wants to cut - across the board but what he is saying is that the partisan right should not be holding govt hostage to do only what they want ....
Republicans are total losers on this.
you cannot operate govt by insisting everything be done the way you want or you'll lock it up and break it.
the whole Republican strategy counts on them getting total control of the Presidency and both houses - which the last time they did - they just totally screwed up... and instead of cutting govt..they expanded govt.. they expanded entitlements and the military.. created a 1.5 trillion annual deficit and doubled the debt...
and you want them to encore....
unbelievable...
Larry,
"ZIP! and that's because SS is funded 99% from FICA and NOT the income tax...."
Al Gore wasn't elected. We never got the 'lock box'. They can tell you what's funding what, but it all ends up in general revenue. I don't really understand why one would separate fica from fed tax to begin with, they're both income taxes with different rules.
" We never got the 'lock box'."
what was the "lock box" for ?
wasn't it for EXCESS FICA tax collected but not spent?
" They can tell you what's funding what, but it all ends up in general revenue."
2.1 trillion in EXCESS FICA TAX did end up being spent for General Revenues but that's the OPPOSITE of saying that SS caused a deficit.
the part youse guys don't get is that we take in 1.3 trillion in income taxes and almost 900 billion in FICA.
FICA can only be spent on SS, DI and HI and nothing else unless it generates a surplus and then that surplus can be "stolen".
but you can't spend FICA on DOD for instance.
The only funding DOD has is from the 1.3 trillion in income taxes.
When DOD is spending almost 900 billion a year and it's all funded from the 1.3 trillion in income tax revenues.. you can start to see the real problem ....
conflating and confusing FICA and Income taxes won't help you in understanding the budget.
I don't really understand why one would separate fica from fed tax to begin with, they're both income taxes with different rules.
You could totally cut SS and DOD would not get a penny of FICA and it would still depend on the 1.3 trillion for it's 900 billion in funding.
Either youse guys don't understand that ...or you don't want to...
but in the real world - you have to if you are going to propose a way to balance the budget.
Ron Paul knows that.
His budget shows that.
Larry,
"2.1 trillion in EXCESS FICA TAX did end up being spent for General Revenues"
ummmm, then how come ss is in the red?
I don't think I'm the one that has a problem understanding how revenues work. I think it might be the people we send our money to.
BTW, the lock box was proposed so we couldn't spend SS surplus on other stuff, knowing that we'd eventually run deficits.
I think you know how budgets are SUPPOSED to work, but not how they actually fudge the whole system.
" "2.1 trillion in EXCESS FICA TAX did end up being spent for General Revenues"
ummmm, then how come ss is in the red?"
primarily because of the 2% FICA tax reduction.
in prior years, FICA would, for most years, generate MORE in revenues than it cost in SS benefits.
That's were that surplus came from guy.
and that's why SS current impact on the federal budget deficit is minimal.
"I don't think I'm the one that has a problem understanding how revenues work. I think it might be the people we send our money to."
no.. you have a problem.
you don't understand that for 65 years FICA generated surpluses and not deficits - UNLIKE the other side of the Federal budget that HAS generated deficits.
FICA and SS stayed within their funding ....
"BTW, the lock box was proposed so we couldn't spend SS surplus on other stuff, knowing that we'd eventually run deficits."
you don't know guy. There are more than 10 trust funds and they all work the same way.
there are trust funds for DI, HI, and Medicare Part B.
Medicare Part B if funded from income taxes and it has a trust fund just like SS.
Can you tell me why?
I bet you cannot because you simply do not understand how these trust funds actually work.
Do you realize that the federal gas tax on gasoline goes into a trust fund?
do you think that trust fund
"lock box" or the "lock box" for Federal flood insurance have been
"raided"?
tell me what you know about this.
"I think you know how budgets are SUPPOSED to work, but not how they actually fudge the whole system"
indeed...
but I'm asking you how all these different trust funds actually work right now.. and I bet you don't know...because you essentially don't understand why these trust funds were created in the first place.
All of them suffer from the same risk of being "raided" ...in fact ALL of them ARE raided...
do you know that?
do you know how that works?
"ZIP! and that's because SS is funded 99% from FICA and NOT the income tax....:
That's ludicrous. It's all dumped into the same pile. You must be just playing obtuse, nobody could be this stupid.
"so you say cut entitlements but you don't really understand (or acknowledge) the DIFFERENCE between FICA-funded entitlements and nonFICA-funded entitlements."
In the end, there is no difference. It all comes out of the federal budget, I'm still out the total taxes regardless of which line on my w-2 it's taken from. Again, you must pretending not to understand this because you don't want your free lunch reduced.
"becasue Obama's plan cuts across the board and raises new revenues SUFFICIENT to reach a balanced budget sooner rather than later and Ryan cuts entitlements but little else and won't raise new revenues and doesn't reach balance until 2030.. and at that is premised on a 3% unemployment rate to generate his bogus supply-side revenues."
WHERE does his "plan" reach a balanced budget??? What year?
"they expanded entitlements and the military.. created a 1.5 trillion annual deficit and doubled the debt.."
The last year the GOP had unified control in Washington DC, the deficit was around $170 billion. Yes, I would love to go back to that manageable problem. Obama and the Democrats created an existential crisis.
But hey, they give you free shit they took from somebody else, so bravo!
" In the end, there is no difference. It all comes out of the federal budget"
nope.
you'll never spend FICA on DOD unless it's left over from SS.
and when you talk about balance the budget and cutting 1.5 trillion in spending - FICA won't help you - All of the 1.5 trillion in cuts has to come from income-tax funded purposes.
the fact is that you don't understand guy.
not a single elected leader that I know of including the right wing idiots have ever argued that FICA should fund both SS and DOD...
so how can YOU be THIS DUMB guy?
Larry,
Wow. You're clearly an omnipotent genius and I apologize for being so bold as to even converse with you. Your ability to see how little people understand is simply astonishing.
In fact, you're one of those 'way too smart' guys that say things that seem to contradict their own argument, but really, I just don't understand.
....."There are more than 10 trust funds and they all work the same way"
"All of them suffer from the same risk of being "raided" ...in fact ALL of them ARE raided... "
Damn! You made that sound almost exactly like what I said...but it means something completely different when you say it...I guess.
SS has been widely known to be in a questionable position for the future since I was a child, but the problem is:
...."primarily because of the 2% FICA tax reduction."
Do you mean the one from last year? This is some wormhole weirdness!
Al Gore campaigned on it, W Bush tried to overhaul it because it was a mess, but the big problem started last year. In another dimension, I suppose.
I'll try to answer your question about how it works in an analogy. You are given an allowance to cover the monthly payments for a certain item. That allowance usually covers the item. Many times you have extra at the end of the month that you can either save or spend. Knowing that you'll be responsible for a huge balloon payment down the road, you do the rational thing and just blow the leftover money every month.
"SS has been widely known to be in a questionable position for the future since I was a child, but the problem is:
...."primarily because of the 2% FICA tax reduction."
If you might bother to check - FICA/SS has been in surplus most years since you were a kid - in fact enough that it amassed 2.1 trillion in surplus.
guy .. it's not omnipotence... it's simply working off of the available facts - which you don't have - apparently since you were a child.
you need to find the facts guy and stop sucking on propaganda...
here's a start:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2009/4a.pdf
Mike - here's another one for you:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html
yeah, yeah, I know.. it's not what your fav right wing sites say...
bummer
Larry,
Yes, you are absolutely correct. We have 2+trillion in surplus. Unfortunately, they're in worthless bonds since the feds have looted the entire fund and replaced it with junk.
I'm actually worried about you. That last time I saw a guy with such an odd sense of ever-confidence, argue so feverishly, with such little understanding of the actual argument... or who he was talking to, he was so coked up that I was sure he was going to stroke out.
If you want to take SS's word on the state of SS, I'm sure you can find an equally-qualified financial advisor who learned from Madoff.
With 2+ trillion in surplus, why did Obama say he couldn't guarantee the SS payments would go out without a debt ceiling raise? It's all just sitting there in the bank, right?
Here is a nice link from one of my favorite "right-wing" sites....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/dtlewis/rick-perry-social-security-ponzi-scheme_n_931400_103734401.html
You have no idea what we're even arguing about and that is something you should be concerned about. In your delusional state, I want to be clear. When I said your were omnipotent, I was joking.
...."it's not omnipotence... it's simply working off of the available facts".....
No, it's called gullibility. If there's anyone sucking propaganda, I'm afraid it's you.
" Larry,
Yes, you are absolutely correct. We have 2+trillion in surplus. Unfortunately, they're in worthless bonds since the feds have looted the entire fund and replaced it with junk."
Mike - you don't understand how it works.
there are DAILY transactions where SS redeems some of their thousands of treasury notes:
take a look:
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/transactions.cgi
" I'm actually worried about you. That last time I saw a guy with such an odd sense of ever-confidence, argue so feverishly, with such little understanding of the actual argument... or who he was talking to, he was so coked up that I was sure he was going to stroke out."
I work off of facts - and you?
don't suck on propaganda dude - get the facts.. and when you do .. provide them.. instead of your insults..
" With 2+ trillion in surplus, why did Obama say he couldn't guarantee the SS payments would go out without a debt ceiling raise? It's all just sitting there in the bank, right?"
if you actually go read about how the transactions work - you'd know.
"You have no idea what we're even arguing about and that is something you should be concerned about. In your delusional state, I want to be clear. When I said your were omnipotent, I was joking.
...."it's not omnipotence... it's simply working off of the available facts".....
No, it's called gullibility. If there's anyone sucking propaganda, I'm afraid it's you."
are you saying that the SS links I provide to back up what I'm saying are "propaganda" ?
I back up everything I say guy with links to the source.
you folks that don't are actually believe the right wing propaganda or that the Social security websites are "lies" are the ones that are delusional...
I know.. I know.. folks like you don't work off of facts.. you do't need to ..
right?
if you'd take a couple of minutes to actually get the facts guy.. you'd learn something..
and part of what you'd learn is what a fool you are for believing the right wing ...
so ...go read this link:
and then take yourself to this
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
and skip down to where it says:
Interest earnings 108.2
and tell me where those interest earnings come from....
remember.. SS .. actually REDEEMS treasury notes on a DAILY and WEEKLY basis ...as well as buys them on a weekly/daily basis...
the surplus in other words is accessed on a continuing basis...
of course if you really understood how the trust funds really worked, you'd know that but instead you get your info from the propaganda idiots.. and you believe it.
tsk tsk
Larry,
First, I'd like to be clear that the insults started flowing from you first by calling me right-wing (that's insulting to me).
"I back up everything I say guy with links to the source."
That's the problem. Your source. Yes, I do believe the info you're getting is propaganda....it's like believing the used car salesman that the car you're about to purchase was only driven to church on Sundays.
Yes, those notes are transferred...but they aren't worth anything on the open market, so who do you suppose is buying them, from who and what are the ramifications?
Here's a fact for you:
On January 21, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the GAO gave a speech in Washington in which he said,
“The left hand owes the right hand, and that has legal, political and moral significance. But it doesn’t have any economic significance whatsoever. There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.”
Eh, it's just the GAO...he must work for Rush or Hannity.
How about this:
Senator Harry Reid used the word, “embezzlement,” to refer to the practice in a speech on the Senate floor on October 9, 1990. In that same speech, Senator Reid also said, ”We have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.”
Total right winger, that old Harry....
Your problem is that the SS website fails to mention that the "bonds" are actually called "special issues of the Treasury". They aren't real bonds.
Believe what you want to. But I don't think there's any doubt that only a fool unquestionably believes what their government tells them. You keep telling me to get the facts....I'm sorry, Larry, but it's you that lack the facts.
First, I'd like to be clear that the insults started flowing from you first by calling me right-wing (that's insulting to me).
did i call you right wing or say that you got your info from them?
"I back up everything I say guy with links to the source."
That's the problem. Your source. Yes, I do believe the info you're getting is propaganda....it's like believing the used car salesman that the car you're about to purchase was only driven to church on Sundays.
It's coming from the Social Security folks .. is that propaganda? do you have a more objective source?
"Yes, those notes are transferred...but they aren't worth anything on the open market, so who do you suppose is buying them, from who and what are the ramifications?"
they're real money guy. Social Security is using them to pay real benefits... do you dispute that?
"Here's a fact for you:
On January 21, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the GAO gave a speech in Washington in which he said,
“The left hand owes the right hand, and that has legal, political and moral significance. But it doesn’t have any economic significance whatsoever. There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.”
Eh, it's just the GAO...he must work for Rush or Hannity."
if it has no value then why is it listed as real money in the Trustees reports?
"How about this:
Senator Harry Reid used the word, “embezzlement,” to refer to the practice in a speech on the Senate floor on October 9, 1990. In that same speech, Senator Reid also said, ”We have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.”
Total right winger, that old Harry...."
he's right. they SPEND the money BUT Social Security also REDEEMs those certificates for REAL MONEY.
you can't get around that part guy.
those certificates get redeemed for real money...
"Your problem is that the SS website fails to mention that the "bonds" are actually called "special issues of the Treasury". They aren't real bonds."
you obviously have not read the site guy...
they're REAL.. but not the same as general treasury securities...
"Believe what you want to. But I don't think there's any doubt that only a fool unquestionably believes what their government tells them. You keep telling me to get the facts....I'm sorry, Larry, but it's you that lack the facts. "
it's not what I want to believe guy.
It's the simple facts that you refuse to accept...
did you actually go read the site?
I bet not.
you'd go to a right wing site to read propaganda but not the the SS site to get the facts..
Mike - you're essentially disputing the facts as provided by the Social Security Administration...
and you're relying on propaganda from right wing sites who also give the quotes out of context.
why do you do that?
are you afraid to actually go to the SS site and learn the facts?
why do you insist of being ignorant ?
how in the world can you truly understand the issue if you are not willing to learn the facts and instead rely on propaganda?
that's silly ...and self-imposed ignorance...
check here:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
and here:
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/transactions.cgi
and here:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
for the simple unvarnished facts without an ounce of propaganda.
can you not read and find out on your own?
Larry,
"did i call you right wing or say that you got your info from them?"
Correct, which is even worse. Not only do you make an incorrect assumption, that I get my information from right-wing sites, you imply that I am incapable of thinking for myself.
As a matter of fact, yes, I did go to your links and was admittedly perplexed as to why the GAO would say the "bonds" are worthless, Harry Reid says they're worthless and worse, stolen.
I'm guessing you didn't follow the links I provided by my right-wing site, The Huffington Post.
Look at YOUR OWN favorite site....the amount in marketable bonds held is ZERO. Why would they separate these IOU's with marketable bonds?
From your own SS BS site
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html
There are two general types of such securities:
Special issues—available only to the trust funds
Public issues—marketable Treasury bonds available to the public.
The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past.
Does it not occur to you (since Obama said he could not guarantee SS payments without a debt ceiling raise) that we have to buy these bonds with new, real debt in order to actually make them worth something?
So, all the surplus is held in special issue that can only be bought from government trust funds that are full of special issue bonds. It's a shell game of IOU's.
Maybe you should use a few new sites and explain to me why the GAO said that...maybe you'll be able to explain how, once something is stolen from you, as Reid says, you still have it. Talk about willful ignorance...
Look at YOUR OWN favorite site....the amount in marketable bonds held is ZERO. Why would they separate these IOU's with marketable bonds?
because they make the point that they do not invest in marketable bonds - by law....
.
The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past.
are you sure? I don't think so...it does not matter anyhow...
"Does it not occur to you (since Obama said he could not guarantee SS payments without a debt ceiling raise) that we have to buy these bonds with new, real debt in order to actually make them worth something?"
ANY US treasury that is redeemed by anyone - a pension fund, the Chinese, and SS is in the same boat but the bottom line is that the govt has never not paid the money when the security/bond was redeemed - and that was the point with regard to the debt ceiling.
if the debt ceiling was not increased then the thousands of treasury notes that are redeemed every day would not have paid ... and that would have had very serious repercussions....
"So, all the surplus is held in special issue that can only be bought from government trust funds that are full of special issue bonds. It's a shell game of IOU's."
in a way it is - but in reality.. SS redeems thousands of treasuries for real money every day and week.
the idea that it's a big fund that cannot be used is false.
those treasuries can and are redeemed all the time so the 2.1 trillion is definitely usable.
It's a shell game - yes.. but the money is there and available for SS payments.
"Maybe you should use a few new sites and explain to me why the GAO said that...maybe you'll be able to explain how, once something is stolen from you, as Reid says, you still have it. Talk about willful ignorance..."
I'm telling you the facts guy.
the reason I said "right wing" is that the sites that say what you say which is not the facts.. are the "right wing" sites.
And all I'm asking you to do is to recognize the way the trust fund really works... and that the money is indeed available ...and is indeed used....
and they plan on using it until 2037 when it runs out...
and which point SS will NOT be broke and not be unable to pay benefits because of its "unfunded liabilities"..
it continues to receive the FICA tax and it will reduce payouts to 75%.
Now.. I'm telling you that this is not at all what the "right wing" sites say...
and that you continue to parrot what they say.... instead of getting the facts....
if you want me to back off a notch and say that what you are saying SOUNDS LIKE what the right wing sites say..then I'll do that...
but I do not know of any other organizations that are falsely portraying the SS circumstances and I see virtually NONE of the right wing sites...essentially telling the simple truth -
which I have showed you... with the links....
so now you know....
Oh Mike.. in terms of being ignorant... we ALL are ignorant ... just on different subjects...
and the reason I know about SS is that I too heard what the right wing sites were saying but decided to find out for myself... due diligence and all that rot...
and what I found out is that the right wing sites are lying their asses off ..on purpose.. because they simply are opposed to the CONCEPT of SS but won't argue it on the merits but instead seek to propagandize the issue... with disinformation..
I'm after the facts guy..
we can't begin to be able to argue the issue on the merits - if we don't have the facts...
and ..you have to WANT TO KNOW the facts.. and not just accept what the propaganda sites are spewing.
the bottom line here is that SS is not broke.. has a surplus.. can use that surplus.. and will never run a significant deficit because, by law, they cannot spend any more than FICA generates... and if FICA falls short - they reduce benefits automatically to 75%f in 2037 or sooner (depending on factors).
that's the truth...
you can verify it easily by going to the Social Security Trustee's Report and allied info.
the info on the SS sites is in stark contrast to what the right wing sites say....
someone is lying.. and it's not the SS administration....
wake up! smell the coffee!
Larry,
For the LAST TIME, I'm not going to right wing sites! This is, by far, the most right wing site I ever read (ok, WSJ is pretty right wing).
I showed you on the SS site that they have no marketable bonds. Only the government can buy these bonds from trust funds, that just so happen to be filled with more of these non-marketable bonds.
"in a way it is - but in reality.. SS redeems thousands of treasuries for real money every day and week."
Exactly, so, if the bonds were real, they could sell them on the open market to reach their obligations. These special issues are IOU's that are bought with more federal borrowing.
Right wing sites are not saying what I'm repeating.
I got my ammo from the GAO and statements from people like Harry Reid. How is that a right wing web site?
Tell ya what, you find the answers to these 3 questions and then we can continue:
1. Why did the GAO say that?
2. Why did Harry Reid say that?
3. If the bonds are as good as cash, why would Obama say he couldn't guarantee SS payments without a debt ceiling raise. From what I remember, they had about a half trillion dollars in general revenue they could actually use and the payments would have gone out initially. But there is no reason why they can't use trust funds to pay for that trust fund's obligation.
If you can answer those question without repeating what the SS sites say, then I'll drop it.
BTW, for some reason, my last post with the SS link seems to be missing (I didn't delete it) but, yes, the SS site you directed me to says they had public bonds in the trust in the past....what I put in that post was a copy-n-paste from the SS site.
Exactly, so, if the bonds were real, they could sell them on the open market to reach their obligations. These special issues are IOU's that are bought with more federal borrowing.
they cannot sell them on the open market by law...they are restricted from doing so
Right wing sites are not saying what I'm repeating.
I got my ammo from the GAO and statements from people like Harry Reid. How is that a right wing web site?
Tell ya what, you find the answers to these 3 questions and then we can continue:
1. Why did the GAO say that?
2. Why did Harry Reid say that?
because the govt has spent the money that backs the bonds....
but you'd be wrong if you think that means they are worthless and not redeemable...
they are redeemed EVERY day for REAL MONEY that they turn around and send to SS recipents.
the "premise" is that "some day", the govt won't redeem them and that's just never going to happen.
remember... EVERY DAY.. the IRS receives FICA Taxes and EVERY DAY they put them in the general revenues and the govt issues special issue securities in lieu of the cash.. and at the same time ... SS is redeeming older notes.. to send to SS recipients.
3. If the bonds are as good as cash, why would Obama say he couldn't guarantee SS payments without a debt ceiling raise. From what I remember, they had about a half trillion dollars in general revenue they could actually use and the payments would have gone out initially. But there is no reason why they can't use trust funds to pay for that trust fund's obligation.
because if the debt ceiling was not raised the govt could not redeem the special issue notes but then they could not redeem the notes held by the Chinese or by pension funds either.
If you can answer those question without repeating what the SS sites say, then I'll drop it.
BTW, for some reason, my last post with the SS link seems to be missing (I didn't delete it) but, yes, the SS site you directed me to says they had public bonds in the trust in the past....what I put in that post was a copy-n-paste from the SS site.
okay.. I was not sure... I stand corrected.
Mike - when you buy US Savings Bonds, you are buying US treasury securities...
the debt ceiling is like a letter of credit from your bank.. that says even though you only have X in your account.. they'll back you for X+Y...
by law - apparently - when we hit the debt ceiling - the govt cannot redeem treasury notes - no matter who is holding them nor what kind they are (i.e. special issue).
"by law - apparently - when we hit the debt ceiling - the govt cannot redeem treasury notes - no matter who is holding them nor what kind they are (i.e. special issue)."
Do you understand why that is so?
how about you explain ....
"how about you explain ..."
Are you serious? You are schooling Mike on treasuries and the debt ceiling, and have tried to explain the deficit to others, when you don't even know how it all works? That takes incredible nerve.
Tell me you seriously don't know why treasuries can't be redeemed when the debt ceiling is reached and I will explain it to you.
I'm not totally sure... to be honest because in theory some things could be paid and others not - as long as you don't exceed the threshold but there may be some specific things that are specifically restricted.
For instance.. it was posited that some Fed employees.. or some soldiers might not get paid.. or they all would but not the full amount...
but since SS notes are specifically certificates of debt.. the law may say that none can be issued once the limit is reached (even though older debt is being paid off also).
it starts to get complicated... and I don't pretend to thoroughly understand it.
Nearly all the things I'm telling Mike are not my direct knowledge.. it comes directly off the SS and OMB websites...... I pass on what I learn..
"it starts to get complicated... and I don't pretend to thoroughly understand it."
It has been made complicated, or at least made to appear complicated by political hacks to confound people who believe them, like you.
It's really quite simple if you only consider the basic forest, and don't get confused by the interesting patterns in the bark, that hacks like Reid and Obama are calling your attention to.
Here we go:
The "government" has only one source of income: taxes and fees. So whenever we refer to government spending we are talking about money taken from individuals as taxpayers. I don't think anyone questions that, but I want it to be clear.
The government, at the request of various interests, all claiming urgent need, has obligated itself to spend way more than it brings in in revenue, so there is, every year, a deficit; something you mention frequently with alarm, and rightfully so.
This deficit is financed by borrowing the difference in the form of treasury bonds from anyone holding US dollars, including foreign countries.
These are just IOUs, or promises to pay, in effect an obligation on future tax collections, some from taxpayers not even born yet. We call the total of all these outstanding IOUs, the national debt, currently approaching $15tn.
Your individual share of that total obligation is currently something like $46k.
The problem comes from borrowing, by selling new treasuries to pay off existing ones, including interest, as they come due.
This requires an ever higher level of borrowing, equivilent to your continually refinancing your home loan, for ever higher amounts, because you can't make the payments. It can't work indefinately. At some point, you MUST reduce spending on other things, so you can service this debt from your income.
When the debt ceiling is reached, government can no longer refinance old debt by issuing new treasuries. In other words, can no longer borrow more money.
That's it: that's the whole thing. Spending higher than income, and no more credit available. No promises-to-pay of any kind can be redeemed because there isn't any money available to redeem them.
Liars and scoundrels like Obama try to scare folks with warnings that something many people have a direct interest in, like Social Security checks or military pay, might not get paid.
If this were your household, you might try to reduce your obligations by getting rid of that leased Lamborghini, and getting a Camry instead, and maybe that expensive timeshare, and maybe giving up that 3 week European vacation you had planned. You would laugh if some political hack suggested that if didn't borrow more money, your electric bill wouldn't get paid, and you would have to go without food.
I Hope that helps.
"Nearly all the things I'm telling Mike are not my direct knowledge.. it comes directly off the SS and OMB websites...... I pass on what I learn.."
No, you are passing on what you think you learned. You don't seem to understand that what you read at those sites is the result of clever spin that puts lipstick on a pig. You are therefore misinforming Mike by presenting your view that it can't really be a pig, because it looks so kissable.
I believe Mike knows better.
well it sorta helps... if SS is still collecting FICA taxes and wants to trade some FICA taxes for new "promise to pay" securities in exchange for redeeming old securities and the transaction is a zero sum.. why not?
question 2.
if SS has a 2.1 trillion surplus (that is already a component of the 14+ Trillion).... then why can't it draw on it since it's not creating any new debt?
so I'm not entirely clear how the debt ceiling affects SS since it is primarily financed with FICA and it's "surplus" was also generated from FICA.
in terms of cutting...
we could lay off 100K worth of soldiers.. right now - right?
we could immediately cut DOD back to 2008 levels..
those were options....
but I never heard those who refused to raise the limit - lay out the cuts that would take us back below the limit.
you would think that the folks who argue against raising the debt limit would have a ready-to-go list of cuts - right?
instead.. they insisted that Obama "find" them....
so much for Political courage eh?
" No, you are passing on what you think you learned. You don't seem to understand that what you read at those sites is the result of clever spin that puts lipstick on a pig. You are therefore misinforming Mike by presenting your view that it can't really be a pig, because it looks so kissable."
not unless you think the SSA is lying...
I provide facts from credible sites.
you guys provide blather and bloviation from right wing propagandists...
the whole entire narrative from them on the trust fund is a demonstrable lie....
the whole entire narrative from them about unfunded liabilities is blatant misinformation.
you can tell when they are lying because.. they write the narrative.. and claim the data came from SS but they do not give the link and page references.
if they gave the actual page references people would see how they are taking the info out of context and twisting it per their ideological agenda...
my view is that in order to have a HONEST debate about the MERITs of Social Security - you cannot begin by telling one lie after another ...which is what virtually all the right-leaning sites do.
Virtually none of them actually back up what they are saying with links to credible information...
it's almost always cherry-picked and out of context... clever - but lies...none-the-less.
SS is not bankrupt. SS is not the cause of the current deficit and debt.... SS will not go "broke".
The "unfunded liabilities" are less than the Prescription drug program unfunded liabilities and for that matter how many govt agency budgets are actually projected over 75 years ?
what would the DOD or Subsidized flood insurance "unfunded liability" look like over 75 years?
how in the heck do you actually compute an "unfunded liability" for something that is funded by income taxes anyhow?
If Medicare Part B has an unfunded liability over a 75 year horizon.. then what does the DOD unfunded liability look like over that same 75 year horizon.
I call this stupid is as stupid does when people are too lazy to verify the facts and choose to believe what the right wing ideologues are spouting....without question.
you cannot have an honest debate when the side that wants to kill SS is lying their butt off every time they open their mouths.
Larry,
I think Ron did I nice job explaining the problem. I tried to sum it up, but I'm not good at that much of the time.
In short: The special issues are not securities or bonds, they are, in fact, IOU's that can only be purchased by the government that took the money out of the surplus. This is why I asked you to find out for yourself why Reid and the GAO said what they said.
The only way they can replenish the 'surplus' when needed is to borrow more money because they run deficits every year. Fact is, there is no SS surplus until the general revenue pays off our debt and starts running a surplus.
This is why I asked you to find out for yourself why they needed a debt ceiling raise...and why I said that your SS site was a lie.
When the FICA payments v liabilities run in the red, that spells huge trouble. I don't know much about the '2037 premise' but it seems to me that's pretty optimistic as it is.
"well it sorta helps... if SS is still collecting FICA taxes and wants to trade some FICA taxes for new "promise to pay" securities in exchange for redeeming old securities and the transaction is a zero sum.. why not?"
For the same reason you can't borrow money on your maxed out credit card to make the payment that's due. Old debt must be paid first, then new debt incurred.
It's not SS wanting to sell IOUs, as SS has no excess receipts to loan. It would be Treasury wanting to borrow money from SS in your example.
SS needs every cent collected for benefit payments at this time, and for the foreseeable future, and can't possibly consider loaning more money to treasury, its only legal debtor.
"if SS has a 2.1 trillion surplus (that is already a component of the 14+ Trillion).... then why can't it draw on it since it's not creating any new debt?
Draw on what? SS can only draw on Treasury by selling back IOUs. Treasury has no money, remember? Expenditures greater than income, and no borrowing allowed before the debt ceiling was raised. Now SS can and will draw on Treasury, but it will add to the debt.
You could remove unnecessary complication and potential sources of confusion from your thinking if you stopped insisting on visualizing so many separate accounting entries.
To insist that FICA and SS and other entitlements be considered individually is a source of great confusion for you. They are only accounting conventions.
All taxes, whether FICA or income, come from your pay. It makes no difference to your paycheck. Money gone, is money gone, and it all ends up in the same bucket at Treasury, no matter what it's called. It also all gets spent from Treasury no matter what it's called.
A similarly futile excecise would be trying to determine how much of the gasoline you put in your tank was refined from oil imported from Canada. You may know that 13.5% of all oil used in the US comes from Canada, but the amount going into your tank cannot be separated, and is meaningless.
Almost all discussions and comments here, except yours, as well as almost all references refer to government revenue and expenditures as dollars and percentages, without regard to the different accounting labels put on them. This allows a simpler view of the forest, without losing sight of it by obsessing on the bark.
This unnecessary display of detail is one of the most common shades of lipstick used by those who produce government webpages such as SS.
"in terms of cutting...
we could lay off 100K worth of soldiers.. right now - right?
we could immediately cut DOD back to 2008 levels..
those were options...."
Yes, and excellent ones at that.
"but I never heard those who refused to raise the limit - lay out the cuts that would take us back below the limit.
you would think that the folks who argue against raising the debt limit would have a ready-to-go list of cuts - right?"
No, I wouldn't necessary expect everyone who opposed raising the debt limit to have a complete plan for balancing the budget. Several serious suggestions were offered, but any meaningful cuts were dismissed by you as politically impossible, then you asked again for suggestions.
What would it take, then? What's your plan, or do you think it's necessary to keep spending at current levels, and borrowing more each year until lenders refuse further credit, which seems to be right about now?
Ron,
I think I did a better job of simplifying my position (2 posts up). Feel free to correct me if I said something inaccurate.
I think the thing that confounds me is how somebody like Larry can come to sites like this, see all the government distortion handed out every day, and then go full throttle with information provided by SS, like it's immutable truth.
And, just for the record (since I don't expect you to go back and read all the posts)...the SS versus DOD (and other nonsense) was never my argument. The only point I made through the entire thread was how SS surplus was a fraud and that a tax on your income was a tax on your income.
"not unless you think the SSA is lying..."
I think the SSA is putting lipstick on a pig, as I explained. Confusing people like you who have limited knowledge of accounting and economics is accomplished by presenting impressive write-ups, and important looking tables of numbers that while not technically lies, don't really mean what you think they do, either.
"I provide facts from credible sites."
You present the same SS sites over and over, but don't understand what you're reading there.
"you guys provide blather and bloviation from right wing propagandists..."
You would also do better to resist the urge to dismiss people and websites so quickly as "right wing propaganda". Although it makes it easier for you, by removing any obligation on your part to actually consider anything outside your existing view of the world, it seriously interferes with your learning.
"the whole entire narrative from them on the trust fund is a demonstrable lie...."
From who? Demonstrable? Well, then , demonstrate it. I'm eager to see it.
"the whole entire narrative from them about unfunded liabilities is blatant misinformation."
You don't understand unfunded liabilities, and until you can describe to my satisfaction the meaning of the term "Net Present Value", there won't be any discussion of unfunded liabilities.
You continue to cut and paste the same original comments about the subject over and over. They were wrong then, and are wrong now.
Mike - take a look here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/transactions.html
pick a year and then look at the transactions.. and tell me what is going on...
"I think I did a better job of simplifying my position (2 posts up). Feel free to correct me if I said something inaccurate."
You did great, Mike. :)
"I think the thing that confounds me is how somebody like Larry can come to sites like this, see all the government distortion handed out every day, and then go full throttle with information provided by SS, like it's immutable truth."
That confounds a lot of us, Mike. Most have given up on him, but it almost sounded like he actually wanted help with something, so I gave it to him. I don't mind when I have a lot of time, like right now.
Although I have no hope of changing Larry's views, someone else might benefit from the discussion.
" Treasury has no money, remember?"
not true guy...
Can the Chinese redeem their notes?
yes.
If you redeem a savings bond... do you get money?
yes...
go look guy:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/transactions.html
tell me what's going on here..
Larry,
IT'S THE SAME THING.
We can't pay those AND the other govt expenses without borrowing more. You want an explanation, here it is: $12 + trillion in debt.
Do I have to attach a link for that?
" "I think the thing that confounds me is how somebody like Larry can come to sites like this, see all the government distortion handed out every day, and then go full throttle with information provided by SS, like it's immutable truth."
it's MORE truth than Heritage and the right wing blogs.. guys..
remember.. SS has a RECORD of 65 years of providing information.
they can't switch it around to suite the situation each year...
if you are not going to believe the SSA and you ARE going to believe the idiots .. what are you doing?
you're living in your own little world.. believing what you wish to believe...
you might as well be in a rubber room ....
I gave you this site:
http://www.ssa.gov/pgm/links_governance.htm
now I want to know if you think the SSA is lying about this data.
yes or no...
no weaseling...
do you think SSA is lying?
IT'S THE SAME THING.
We can't pay those AND the other govt expenses without borrowing more. You want an explanation, here it is: $12 + trillion in debt.
Do I have to attach a link for that?
they are legitimate debts just like we owe the Chinese and just like folks who have savings bonds and treasury securities in their 401K and as far as I know the govt has paid them all.. everytime...
so your claim is total blather..
you still don't understand....
the entire FICA revenue stream goes THROUGH the trust fund.
there are thousands of transactions every week but you don't even bother to look at and understand the info in the link.
it's the same old "don't bother me with the facts" idiocy.
I said it was a lie from the get go....YES...it's misleading B.S.!!!!!!
Larry, there seems to only be one person in this discussion living in their own little world and that would be you. I WISH I didn't have to think about this crap. I WISH you were right. You are not.
It is this simple: you own a biz that operates within its means most of the time to meet obligation. The salary you pay yourself out of your little corp is less than you spend on personal things you want....you draw up an agreement between you and the biz you own to "borrow" chunks of money out of the reserves from time to time at X% interest.
That 'investment loan' still shows up on your biz record as an asset.
You continue to borrow...but, now the business starts to fail. Can it call its loan on you? No, because you're an idiot who couldn't live within your means, borrowed money you couldn't repay without serious lifestyle change and both you and the biz go down in flames.
Your facts are without details. I am just astounded that you don't get this....where do you think all that debt comes from? I could make the same idiotic argument that we take in plenty of revenue each year to pay for DOD, so that must not be part of the problem....would that sound stupid to you? If so, then you may be getting it.
I said it was a lie from the get go....YES...it's misleading B.S.!!!!!!
Larry, there seems to only be one person in this discussion living in their own little world and that would be you. I WISH I didn't have to think about this crap. I WISH you were right. You are not.
so SSA is lying about SS and the funds , is that what you are saying?
and instead of SSA - you believe WHO for the truth?
and I'm the one living in my own little world?
ha ha ha
you conspiracy guys crack me up..
I think I've got it now.. you basically believe what you want to believe.. eh?
if you don't believe the SSA - why didn't you make that totally clear from the get go and tell me that any links I provided you would not believe?
there is no conversation here guys if you believe the SSA is lying..
and the Heritage fools are not.
Oh God, Larry...I believe I did make it VERY clear that the SS info was (at best) misleading.
1. Explain to me why the US sells bonds and how we can pay them when we have a negative balance.
2. Explain to me why these special securities in the SS surplus can only be bought by the govt and where it gets the money to do so when they are always running in the red.
3. Explain where the 12+ trillion in debt came from.
This is not a conspiracy. This is bad fiscal policy that has been allowed to continue because the problems don't pop up until long after those who enacted them are gone and those who hold the office now can't cut what their retarded constituents have grown accustomed to.
Let me guess...you find the SS info completely above board and beyond reproach, but are suspicious of anything the DOD or NSA does...you do realize these are the same people, right?
You don't answer my questions, but I will answer yours. Who do I believe? Nobody in particular. I believe, when things work in an indisputable way (ie: the fact that we have to borrow to pay for our 'surplus'), I listen to the sources I gave you before....people with opposing view points, theoretically neutral agencies and groups and then I make the obvious determination. I think that makes me the opposite of a conspiracy guy.
If you have a dem congressman in your district, call him. Ask him/her how we redeem the 'surplus' if we have no money. Why the debt ceiling had anything at all to do with SS if there was an actual surplus. He will tell you what Ron and I have been saying. If not, you'll have to let me know who it is and I'll call him/her myself to find out how nothing gets to be something, because I feel like I'm a little behind in my IRA savings and that kind of magic would be helpful.
Oh God, Larry...I believe I did make it VERY clear that the SS info was (at best) misleading.
he 12+ trillion in debt came from.
you guys are nutty.. you're using SS's OWN DATA to claim it's bankrupt at the SAME TIME you say you don't believe them.
ya'll do that with the debt too... you rely on govt data for the 1.5T deficit and 14+T debt but then you say you don't believe the govt when it talks about trust funds.
downright nutty... you selectively believe what you want to and don't believe what you don't want to.
1. Explain to me why the US sells bonds and how we can pay them when we have a negative balance.
we do guy.. that's the facts...
when you cash your savings bond - you get money.
that's a reality...
the fact you don't understand is your problem...caused in no small part by your refusal to accept basic facts... and choosing instead to believe what you wish.
2. Explain to me why these special securities in the SS surplus can only be bought by the govt and where it gets the money to do so when they are always running in the red.
because guy that's the way they were set up originally - on purpose. they're still real.
because like you... you can STILL pay your bills even if you owe a bunch of money on your mortgage...
can you show me a single example of where the govt did not redeem ANY debt when it was redeemed?
3. Explain where the 12+ trillion in debt came from.
it did NOT come from SS... which is the central point of you anti-SS types...
you focus on SS as the problem when it's not.
the 14T came from spending on the income tax/general revenue side of the budget - not FICA...
but you guys say that because SS WILL start to incur deficits that it's the priority problem so you ignore the real reasons why we have the 14T debt...
you could kill SS tomorrow and it would not change anything with regard to the deficit and debt.
but that's what you say needs to be dealt with right now...
why?
it's bass ackwards...
the very first thing you need to do is get rid of the 1.5T deficit and cutting SS won't do but about 40 billion ... where is the rest and why is that not the priority?
the answer is that you disagree with the CONCEPT of SS but you are disingenuously using bogus fiscal data to justify your argument.
that's not going to work guy.
it might work in your little world but at a policy level - they deal with actual realities and the reality is that SS will start to run deficits - true - but they are minuscule compared to the deficit itself...
oops:
" José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists.
Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb ("dirty bomb") attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court."
yeah.. I know the commie Wiki made this up..right?
this is a bad dude - not question about it but he was a US citizen and detained for several years without charges...
was it "tyrannical" and unconstitutional.. to do that?
is it okay to do that as long as they appear to be home-grown terrorists?
here's how the govt responded to the writ of Habeas corpus
Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
Padilla's lawyer was not a proper "Next Friend" to sign and file the petition on Padilla's behalf;
Commander Marr of the South Carolina brig, and not U.S. Secretary Rumsfeld, should have been named as the respondent to the petition; and
the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over the named respondent Secretary Rumsfeld who resides in Virginia.
1. "when you cash your savings bond - you get money."
with more borrowed money. It's like me owing you money and getting a pay day loan to pay you. And you're trying to tell me how things work at a policy level? Dude....I'm not sure you understand how things work at any level.
2. "because like you... you can STILL pay your bills even if you owe a bunch of money on your mortgage..."
No. I can pay my mortgage and all my other bills because they're a fraction of my income. If they were more than my income, I'd have to borrow to pay. That's what the government is doing. Not me.
If, for some reason, my mortgage was "called" and I had to lump-sum pay now, I'd either pay it or sell it and my lifestyle would not change at all.
3. "it did NOT come from SS... which is the central point of you anti-SS types..."
First, I'm not anti-SS at all.
"you focus on SS as the problem when it's not."
I do not focus on SS as the biggest problem, just part of a big problem
"the 14T came from spending on the income tax/general revenue side of the budget - not FICA..."
well, actually, a good chunk of that is unfunded liability stolen from SS surplus (when it was real).
4. "you could kill SS tomorrow and it would not change anything with regard to the deficit and debt."
Obviously incorrect, but I don't think that would be a good thing to do, nor do I think it would fix the problem....never said it would.
5. "but that's what you say needs to be dealt with right now..."
Go back through my posts and show me where I even hinted towards a statement like that. That is 100% your assumption/certainty, and it was made about someone you know absolutely nothing about. That's a personal flaw.
6. "the answer is that you disagree with the CONCEPT of SS but you are disingenuously using bogus fiscal data to justify your argument."
Again, never said anything like that. And, again, you're wrong.
All I ever said was that the surplus was BS and that those who raided a program that so many people rely on should be in jail with Madoff.
I do not believe, with boomer retirement, that SS in a good position and I believe it needs to be fixed/adjusted/reduced. I never stated that it should go away...actually, I never said half the crap you spewed, but somehow, you find that to be disagreeable.
My advice to you would be to assume less and listen more.
Call your congressman. I'll be here when you're ready to apologize.
1. "when you cash your savings bond - you get money."
with more borrowed money. It's like me owing you money and getting a pay day loan to pay you. .....
people who hold treasury notes STILL get their money guy even if you do't understand how.
2. "because like you... you can STILL pay your bills even if you owe a bunch of money on your mortgage..."
No. I can pay my mortgage and all my other bills because they're a fraction of my income. ....
the govt is paying it's bills guy.
show me that they are not.
3. "it did NOT come from SS... which is the central point of you anti-SS types..."
First, I'm not anti-SS at all.
I do not focus on SS as the biggest problem, just part of a big problem
"the 14T came from spending on the income tax/general revenue side of the budget - not FICA..."
well, actually, a good chunk of that is unfunded liability stolen from SS surplus (when it was real).
unfunded liabilities have NOTHING to do with the CURRENT deficit and debt.
they are FUTURE liabilities and they include the ENTIRE budget which is way more than just SS.
4. "you could kill SS tomorrow and it would not change anything with regard to the deficit and debt."
Obviously incorrect, but I don't think that would be a good thing to do, nor do I think it would fix the problem....never said it would.
5. "but that's what you say needs to be dealt with right now..."
Go back through my posts and show me where I even hinted towards a statement like that. That is 100% your assumption/certainty, and it was made about someone you know absolutely nothing about. That's a personal flaw.
you're correct on this
6. "the answer is that you disagree with the CONCEPT of SS but you are disingenuously using bogus fiscal data to justify your argument."
Again, never said anything like that. And, again, you're wrong.
agree.
All I ever said was that the surplus was BS and that those who raided a program that so many people rely on should be in jail with Madoff.
I do not believe, with boomer retirement, that SS in a good position and I believe it needs to be fixed/adjusted/reduced. I never stated that it should go away...actually, I never said half the crap you spewed, but somehow, you find that to be disagreeable.
My advice to you would be to assume less and listen more.
Call your congressman. I'll be here when you're ready to apologize.
I stand corrected on the two issues that I did get confused with others.
my apologies.
but I totally disagree with MOST of what you have said here including the surplus being "raided".
I clearly showed you that the entire FICA revenue stream is continuously cycling through the trust fund..
and you did say that the link I provided you to prove it is a lie?
do you just believe what you wish to?
that's what I find "disagreeable".
my view is simply this.
you have to want to know the facts.
that requires you to actually go read stuff even if it is different than what you thought.
that's how one learns.
if you actually took the time to understand how the trust fund really works - you'd realize just how mistaken your views are.
The IRS puts the FICA tax there and the treasury give SS - thousands of treasury notes in lieu of that money.
At the same time SS is receiving these new issues -they are redeeming the older ones - for REAL MONEY that then gets distributed to the folks that receive SS benefits.
you say this is an "imaginary" fund that is only worthless IOUS.
that's not true guy.
look it up.
"http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/transactions.html
tell me what's going on here.."
Ho Hum. Yaaawn. The same tired old SS page.
What is going on here, is a circular flow of accounting entries. No real money is actually involved. You could do the same thing by repeatedly transferring money between 2 accounts electronically. No actual money would change hands, but you would see a lot of activity.
This is some of the lipstick that fools people like you who are financial illiterates. Please, please, talk to someone you know and trust that has an accounting background, if there is such a person, and if they will still talk to you, and ask them to explain this to you.
You can't just keep asking people here to explain it to you, and then telling them they're wrong. Either accept the answers you get here, or get one somewhere else.
Ron,
“This is some of the lipstick that fools people like you who are financial illiterates…. Please, please, talk to someone you know and trust that has an accounting background, if there is such a person, and if they will still talk to you, and ask them to explain this to you.
You can't just keep asking people here to explain it to you, and then telling them they're wrong.”
That is so what I want (and tried) to say.
You have to do me a favor, when you have time, and go back to that post where we were talking about property tax and renting. I’d like to talk to you more about that. I left another message, but I’ve learned a couple things since….love to get the take of a rational person.
Larry,
You are either not reading what I’m telling you, or YOU don’t understand.
Please, do as Ron asked and ask a professional that you trust…I suggested your congressman, but that may be too much trouble for you. Since it has become clear that you do not read my responses all the way through, I’ll put this challenge up front:
Bring me a link from someone who disputes what I say…any non-SS, non-gov link that supports your idea that those special issues aren’t junk, replacing what was stolen.
1. “People who hold treasury notes STILL get their money guy even if you don’t understand how.”
It’s not me that doesn’t understand how…I told you how it’s done. And, yes, they are still paying the bills…for now…as I described – with revenue and a pay day loan. At this point of ‘bill payment’, as Ron pointed out, it doesn’t matter where on the W2 your taxes come out… they’ve muddled FICA, SS, medicare and general revenue through (because of) massive debt.
2. “the govt is paying it's bills guy.show me that they are not.”
If they stopped paying just some SS or medicare, would you agree that they were not paying their bills? If they made a decision, told people they’re getting “X” and then didn’t pay…that would be ‘not paying their bills’, correct?
Here’s a partial list of those people this year alone:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION , THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE & SCIENCE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, VETERANS AFFAIRS, THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR….
Oh, I forgot…have to source http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/whats-getting-cut-in-the-fy-2011-budget/2011/04/11/AFMIynLD_blog.html
3. “but I totally disagree with MOST of what you have said here including the surplus being "raided".”
OK, that’s fine, disagree. But that doesn’t mean that you’re merely disagreeing with my opinion. That means you disagree with me on a fact…no biggie, I’m an idiot. But it also means you disagree with Harry Reid, the GAO, Morganovich, Ron, Methinks, Mark Perry, Thomas Sowell, etc, etc, etc, etc……. and everybody else who knows A LOT more than you do on the subject. See above for a partial list of potential people to ask.
4. “you have to want to know the facts.”
I have to be honest, I don’t like to enter emotion into this stuff, but this is what makes me actually angry. That’s ALL I want to know. My opinions are my own and they are formed from facts. To me, that sentence is an insult and I’m doing my best not to take it that way.
5. “if you actually took the time to understand how the trust fund really works - you'd realize just how mistaken your views are.”
Wow! Great advice. You should take it. See above challenge. Game on.
6. “The IRS puts the FICA tax there and the treasury give SS - thousands of treasury notes in lieu of that money.”
AND
“you say this is an "imaginary" fund that is only worthless IOUS.”
First, they are special issue which are different. I’m not sure you even read your own posts, Larry…and that does make me feel better.
What is a treasury note? Do you know what that is? You actually don’t know what that is, do you? Even a marketable treasury is a GD IOU! Wait…do you even know what an IOU is?
For Chrissake! Larry, please listen…I never said an IOU was imaginary. They are only good as long as the entity giving said IOU has, or will have, money. We don’t, won’t, and it’s about to get worse.
Look it up. Oh, and try not to use the SS site when you do.
Larry,
You are either not reading what I’m telling you, or YOU don’t understand.
Please, do as Ron asked and ask a professional that you trust….I suggested your congressman, but that may be too much trouble for you. Since it has become clear that you do not read my responses all the way through, I’ll put this challenge up front:
Bring me a link from someone who disputes what I say…..any non-SS, non-gov link that supports your idea that those special issues aren’t junk, replacing what was stolen.
1. “People who hold treasury notes STILL get their money guy even if you don’t understand how.”
It’s not me that doesn’t understand how…I told you how it’s done. And, yes, they are still paying the bills….for now….as I described – with revenue and a pay day loan. At this point of ‘bill payment’, as Ron pointed out, it doesn’t matter where on the W2 your taxes come out….. they’ve muddled FICA, SS, medicare and general revenue through (because of) massive debt.
2. “the govt is paying it's bills guy.show me that they are not.”
If they stopped paying just some SS or medicare, would you agree that they were not paying their bills? If they made a decision, told people they’re getting “X” and then didn’t pay…that would be ‘not paying their bills’, correct?
Here’s a partial list of those people this year alone:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION , THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE & SCIENCE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, VETERANS AFFAIRS, THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR….
Oh, I forgot…have to source http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/whats-getting-cut-in-the-fy-2011-budget/2011/04/11/AFMIynLD_blog.html
3. “but I totally disagree with MOST of what you have said here including the surplus being "raided".”
OK, that’s fine, disagree. But that doesn’t mean that you’re merely disagreeing with my opinion. That means you disagree with me on a fact…no biggie, I’m an idiot. But it also means you disagree with Harry Reid, the GAO, Morganovich, Ron, Methinks, Mark Perry, Thomas Sowell, etc, etc, etc, etc……. and everybody else who knows A LOT more than you do on the subject. See above for a partial list of potential people to ask.
4. “you have to want to know the facts.”
I have to be honest, I don’t like to enter emotion into this stuff, but this is what makes me actually angry. That’s ALL I want to know. My opinions are my own and they are formed from facts. To me, that sentence is an insult and I’m doing my best not to take it that way.
5. “if you actually took the time to understand how the trust fund really works - you'd realize just how mistaken your views are.”
Wow! Great advice. You should take it. See above challenge. Game on.
6. “The IRS puts the FICA tax there and the treasury give SS - thousands of treasury notes in lieu of that money.”
AND
“you say this is an "imaginary" fund that is only worthless IOUS.”
First, they are special issue which are different. I’m not sure you even read your own posts, Larry…and that does make me feel better.
What is a treasury note? Do you know what that is? You actually don’t know what that is, do you? Even a marketable treasury is a GD IOU! Wait…do you even know what an IOU is?
For Chrissake! Larry, please listen….I never said an IOU was imaginary. They are only good as long as the entity giving said IOU has, or will have, money. We don’t, won’t, and it’s about to get worse.
Look it up. Oh, and try not to use the SS site when you do.
Mike
OK, I will check back on that other thread.
One of the great values Larry and others like him provide, is the opportunity to improve one's writing skills. It looks like you've been using him yourself, for practice on this thread. I'm sure he will provide plenty of opportunities for all of us. And, don't worry about chasing him away, there doesn't seem to be anything you can write to cause that.
re: "yawn"
think about where the FICA taxes are sent and how they eventually get to recipients.
This IS REAL MONEY.
if you think the link provided is a paper accounting...
then how about telling me how the path for the real money works.
"I’ll put this challenge up front:
Bring me a link from someone who disputes what I say…any non-SS, non-gov link that supports your idea that those special issues aren’t junk, replacing what was stolen."
Mike - if you do't believe the govt who would you believe? you live in your own little world guy.
the govt is not lying... they have doing these reports for 65 years.
you simply selectively believe who you wish - and that would be true with ANY LINK provided to you.
that's self imposed ignorance but it's typical for some folks these days.
1. “People who hold treasury notes STILL get their money guy even if you don’t understand how.”
"It’s not me that doesn’t understand how…I told you how it’s done. And, yes, they are still paying the bills…for now…as I described – with revenue and a pay day loan. At this point of ‘bill payment’, as Ron pointed out, it doesn’t matter where on the W2 your taxes come out… they’ve muddled FICA, SS, medicare and general revenue through (because of) massive debt."
debt in and of itself does not mean bills cannot be paid in govt or non-govt.
"massive debt" is itself a subjective term.
but again - you talk about massive debt and then you attack FICA/SS as having to be cut as a result of massive debt it had no role in..
why?
"2. “the govt is paying it's bills guy.show me that they are not.”
"If they stopped paying just some SS or medicare, would you agree that they were not paying their bills? If they made a decision, told people they’re getting “X” and then didn’t pay…that would be ‘not paying their bills’, correct?"
the WORST CASE if the trust fund surplus went away is that STILL about a trillion dollars of FICA would be generated and a trillion dollars worth of "bills" WOULD BE PAID.
Again - why do you implicate FICA/SS in this debt issue when it has a separate funding stream and has stayed within it for 65 years?
Here’s a partial list of those
.
Oh, I forgot…have to source http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/whats-getting-cut-in-the-fy-2011-budget/2011/04/11/AFMIynLD_blog.html
You're using WaPO as a credible source of info?
just checking..
and your point is?
that we're cutting ?
you still don't understand.
Cutting SS will not affect the 1.5T deficit guy...
all it will do is INCREASE the amount left over from FICA..is you send out less benefits that are funded from FICA.
FICA has nothing to do with income taxes guy.
3. “but I totally disagree with MOST of what you have said here including the surplus being "raided".”
"OK, that’s fine, disagree. But that doesn’t mean that you’re merely disagreeing with my opinion. That means you disagree with me on a fact…no biggie, I’m an idiot. But it also means you disagree "
it means that you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that SS itself is LYING about the trust fund transactions that you were shown and instead you chose to believe out-of-context remarks instead.
it's idiotic live-in-your-own-little-world behavior.
continued....
"4. “you have to want to know the facts.”
I have to be honest, I don’t like to enter emotion into this stuff, but this is what makes me actually angry. That’s ALL I want to know. My opinions are my own and they are formed from facts. To me, that sentence is an insult and I’m doing my best not to take it that way."
when you think the govt is lying and at the same time you choose to believe cherry-picked, out-of-context things then you are CHOOSING to NOT deal with FACTS.
to characterize the govt as lying and then to say the sources you use are not is total idiocy..
it's not intended as an insult but you certainly should address the issue of why you think the govt is lying - at the SAME TIME you DO USE SOME of the govt data..
you SELECTIVELY decide that the govt IS LYING about the stuff you conveniently disagree with.
ouch!
5. “if you actually took the time to understand how the trust fund really works - you'd realize just how mistaken your views are.”
Wow! Great advice. You should take it. See above challenge. Game on.
no.. there is no "game on" when you say the govt is lying about the process and numbers and folks like Heritage are not...
continued...
6. “The IRS puts the FICA tax there and the treasury give SS - thousands of treasury notes in lieu of that money.”
AND
“you say this is an "imaginary" fund that is only worthless IOUS.”
First, they are special issue which are different."
what the heck difference does that make? are you implying that they are not as real as other notes or won't be paid?
"I’m not sure you even read your own posts, Larry…and that does make me feel better.
What is a treasury note? Do you know what that is? You actually don’t know what that is, do you? Even a marketable treasury is a GD IOU! Wait…do you even know what an IOU is?"
you're being an idiot here. Treasury notes promises to pay whether they are savings bonds, notes the Chinese own, notes you own in your 401 or "special" notes.
they all carry the same promise..
"For Chrissake! Larry, please listen…I never said an IOU was imaginary. They are only good as long as the entity giving said IOU has, or will have, money. We don’t, won’t, and it’s about to get worse.
Look it up. Oh, and try not to use the SS site when you do. "
by your logic a mortgage or a car loan is ALSO an IOU...
so why do you DIFFERENTIATE as to WHAT KIND of debt is an IOU?
you're using the word to imply that special issue notes are not the same as others in terms of payment and that's just not the truth.
Mike - you make this big deal over a 2.1 trillion surplus that is not the primary funding source for SS.
the primary funding source for SS is the almost-trillion dollars a year that comes from FICA.
what happens with the surplus only affects what happens downstream in the out years.. when/if folks like yourself argue that the govt cannot make good on the money in the trust fund.
the absolute worst case for SS even if that were to happen is that FICA would CONTINUE to generate money for SS beneficiaries - but benefits would have to be cut.
NONE OF THIS would affect the general revenue side of the budget which will be struggling with how to balance...
SS "balances" by automatically reducing benefits to match what is coming in - that's in the law - it's at that "lying" SS site.. you know... but of course you'd choose to not believe it because it does not suit what you want to believe.
you spend ALL OF THIS TIME... and words on SS, FICA and the trust fund...
and why?
what exactly IS your point?
FICA/SS is NOT the problem right now.
changes will be required.
more than 30 options are under consideration and one or more will be chosen
JUST LIKE HAS BEEN - more than a dozen times in the prior history of FICA/SS.
which again, is thoroughly documented but again is on those lying ass govt sites...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf
you don't know that you don't know guy... and you don't want to know when you say the govt is lying....
you want ME to provide YOU with what is in your opinion CREDIBLE non-govt sites.
that's funny. :-)
Larry,
"then how about telling me how the path for the real money works."
we did.
"massive debt is itself a subjective term."
No, it's not. Which assets can the government release to cover their 13 trillion?
This is just nonsense. You're wrong. Everybody knows you're wrong. I offered you a challenge that you refused to accept
"you want ME to provide YOU with what is in your opinion CREDIBLE non-govt sites.
that's funny. :-) "
Yes, that is funny...so funny you couldn't do it. Larry believes only the SS (even though he doesn't understand what they're telling him) everybody else is an idiot.
I never said credible 'in my opinion' I'd trust you to find a non-partisan source that you belive...so, basically, we're done here.
You still don't understand the difference between my mortgage and the gov't debt. I already showed you the difference. I can tell you this, if I had debt that totaled more than my income, nobody would give me a mortgage...or a car loan....certainly not at a AAA credit-rating interest rate.
I can only pay my car payment by charging everything else on a credit card for so long (which is what the govt is doing).
You don't understand that every special issue, bond, security is debt when you have a negative balance with which to pay them.
I will ask you again, do you trust the DOD on every move they make? They clearly spell out every dollar they spend and why they need it. So we should just believe them and not question their authority?
How about any other department you don't like? Just trust what they say?
The ethics of our government are what they are and their methods of funding are all the same even if they are 'separated'.
"then how about telling me how the path for the real money works."
we did.
no you didn't ... tell me how the FICA tax gets to beneficiaries.
"massive debt is itself a subjective term."
No, it's not. Which assets can the government release to cover their 13 trillion?
define massive? is it a percentage of GDP? what is an acceptable level of debt?
This is just nonsense. You're wrong. Everybody knows you're wrong. I offered you a challenge that you refused to accept
lord Mike.. the ONLY reason that SS is in deficit right now is because of the 2% reduction in FICA.
and yet you say that we are in so much debt that we cannot afford the cover the 40 billion?
that makes no sense guy... what about the other 1.49 trillion deficit.
If you put the 2% FICA back.. SS will generate surplus revenues until 2017....
so what the beef here?
"you want ME to provide YOU with what is in your opinion CREDIBLE non-govt sites.
that's funny. :-) "
Yes, that is funny...so funny you couldn't do it. Larry believes only the SS (even though he doesn't understand what they're telling him) everybody else is an idiot.
I never said credible 'in my opinion' I'd trust you to find a non-partisan source that you belive...so, basically, we're done here.
you don't consider the govt non-partisan?
ha ha ha... here's a non-partisan for you guy:
http://www.actuary.org/pdf/socialsecurity/reform_07.pdf
You still don't understand the difference between my mortgage and the gov't debt. I already showed you the difference. I can tell you this, if I had debt that totaled more than my income, nobody would give me a mortgage...or a car loan....certainly not at a AAA credit-rating interest rate.
I can only pay my car payment by charging everything else on a credit card for so long (which is what the govt is doing).
You don't understand that every special issue, bond, security is debt when you have a negative balance with which to pay them.
ANY expenditure is DEBT under your definition guy because you say ANY spending once you are in debt - is debt.
it's crazy.but as I said..you say that because we have this debt, we cannot pay the 40 billion for SS but you don't say how we cover the rest of the 1.5 T do you.
and I pointed out to you that the 40 billion is due to the 2% FICA cut anyhow.
so why are you FOCUSED on SS?
I will ask you again, do you trust the DOD on every move they make?
I don't recall you asking me that about DOD...
They clearly spell out every dollar they spend and why they need it. So we should just believe them and not question their authority?
When they publish numbers guy - I trust the numbers until proven otherwise.
SS has provided numbers for 65 years and you can see a year by year history of them and that makes it damned hard to cook the books...
it's downright nutty guy.
Using your idea here.. why do you trust the govt when they tell you we are 1.5T in deficit and 14T in debt?
why do you believe the 2.1T trust fund number?
How about any other department you don't like? Just trust what they say?
The ethics of our government are what they are and their methods of funding are all the same even if they are 'separated'.
I believe the numbers guy ESPECIALLY when they provide them on a historical basis - year to year... whether it is SS, OBM or DOD or any other...
why would you SELECTIVELY believe what you wish and not believe what you don't like?
So you BELIEVE the 2.1T number but you DON'T believe that the entire FICA revenue stream goes THROUGH the trust fund?
how in the world can you really make sense of anything if you deny the facts????
why not just go whole hog on conspiracy theories?
again.. why are you focusing on a 40 billion for one purpose when we have a 1.5T deficit?
why?
you and I know why but you won't admit it.
Larry, Your own SS site has done you in again. Did you bother to read the fine print?
(2008)
Total receipts: 695b...ok, sounds good.
From taxes: 15b...wow, that's quite a difference. Where'd the rest come from?
Net contributions (a) 574b and interest (b) at 105b
Total payments 516b....179b in surplus! Awesome!!
Oh wait...now the small print.
a. Beginning in 1983, includes transfers from the general fund of the Treasury representing contributions that would have been paid on deemed wage credits for military service in 1957–2001, if such credits were considered to be covered wages.
b. Net interest includes net profits or losses on marketable securities, and includes interest adjustments on amounts reimbursed from, or paid to, other trust funds or the general fund of the Treasury. (remember, they don't have any marketable bonds.)
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2009/4a.pdf
" . Beginning in 1983, includes transfers from the general fund of the Treasury representing contributions that would have been paid on deemed wage credits for military service in 1957–2001, if such credits were considered to be covered wages"
because the military had not paid into SS.. guy
since SS was premised on those who received benefits paying into the system.. via payroll.. if you did not pay into the system - and you want coverage - you have to pay what you would have contributed.
see guy.. it's becoming CRYSTAL CLEAR here that you DO have an AGENDA against SS...
you pretend that you're worried about the debt - but you focus on what is a minuscule part of it... to attack SS on a financial aspect even when it's clear SS is currently not in deficit....except for the 2% FICA reduction...
but you continue to go after SS...
it's clear what your agenda here is guy.
when you said you were not after SS - you were being dishonest.. like so many here have been when they start off talking about the "terrible" problem...
shame on you.
" . Beginning in 1983, includes transfers from the general fund of the Treasury representing contributions that would have been paid on deemed wage credits for military service in 1957–2001, if such credits were considered to be covered wages"
because the military had not paid into SS.. guy
since SS was premised on those who received benefits paying into the system.. via payroll.. if you did not pay into the system - and you want coverage - you have to pay what you would have contributed.
see guy.. it's becoming CRYSTAL CLEAR here that you DO have an AGENDA against SS...
you pretend that you're worried about the debt - but you focus on what is a minuscule part of it... to attack SS on a financial aspect even when it's clear SS is currently not in deficit....except for the 2% FICA reduction...
but you continue to go after SS...
it's clear what your agenda here is guy.
when you said you were not after SS - you were being dishonest.. like so many here have been when they start off talking about the "terrible" problem...
shame on you.
Really, Larry?
Can you even add?
Since the time that chart began, that includes (not, solely) "make-up fund" from the military totals 11.2 TRILLION dollars from general revenue.
The tax revenue totals from ALL the rest of us = 141 BILLION.
Are you telling me, with a peak military of just over 2 million people during Vietnam (who made squat) - over the span of 14 years (in which they still make squat) , between '57-'83, they accumulated that much in missing taxes?
Not that it even makes that much difference. We pay the military and their fica with general revenue.
I do have an agenda, but it has nothing more to do with SS than my attempt to get you to open your eyes to the deception.
Larry, sorry typo in the data I provided.
The military span was supposed to say '26 years of not paying in'...(the chart was for the last 14 years.)
But we've been filling that black hole for 28 years at 80 times the tax rate of the entire US workforce.
" We pay the military and their fica with general revenue."
we do now.. we didn't before...
it used to be that the military (and civilian govt) did not pay into SS nor receive benefits).
when the law changed to make the military and Fed govt employees part of SS - in order for them to receive scheduled benefits, they had to pay credits to catch them up.
the "tax revenue" guy is the tax that is obtained by taxing SOME SS benefits...of those who have high incomes.
but again.. what is your point here?
I thought you did not trust SS data?
do you only trust it if you "find" something?
why are you focused on SS when there is a 1.5T deficit in the rest of govt?
" But we've been filling that black hole for 28 years at 80 times the tax rate of the entire US workforce."
not sure how you deduce that...
can you explain?
at any rate.. it appears we both agree on what the GF money was for.
again.. what's your point here?
are you saying that SS is funded from General Revenues and not FICA?
again.. SS has stayed pretty much in balance for 65 years.
three were 11 years where GF money was needed - and it was paid back.
all the rest of the years, it generated a surplus.
and NOW you are saying that because SS generated a surplus - we need to punish it because they were foolish enough to put it in "IOUs".
again...you clearly have an agenda here guy..
how about this.
Medicare Part B also has a trust fund but unlike SS it is funded from General Fund Revenues.
It uses general fund revenues 5 times larger than the temporary FICA-induced shortfall for SS.
Can you tell me what the "surplus" is that Medicare Part B generated?
Do you think Medicare Part B is a bigger problem that SS?
what would you do about Medicare Part B?
Would you cut it to zero because we are paying it with debt?
would you cut DOD to zero because we are paying it with debt?
you do have an agenda here guy...
despite your protestations...
do we stop ALL govt spending because we are in debt?
if we don't have to cut all of it then what do we cut and what is the criteria for what we cut verses what we don't?
Larry,
First and foremost, yes, I totally believe that everything has to be cut. I do not think it wise to do this over night for obvious reasons, but the time to make adjustments is now... nor do I think that anyone even close to nearing retirement age should have to worry that their expected benefits might be cut.
I'm 41. I think they should raise my retirement age now and reduce my benefits.
I do not think that SS is the problem, I think it's what they've done to SS, so they can have hundreds of military bases all over the world, jets that nobody wants and 'free' medical care for all, while they piss away billions on pork to get themselves re-elected.... spending more than they can hope to bring in, that's the problem.
The argument (I think) we're having is that you don't believe the SS money has been stolen and is fraudulently being portrayed. I do.
Is that clear enough for you? I've said that 50 times but you will not listen.
My point with the above post is pretty clear: Since the military reimbursement started (chump change when it began, now 100+ billion per year) the transfer from general revenue in that column is responsible for the surplus, and that surplus will now have to be replenished by issuing new debt because it's been replaced with iou's.
....and that military deal should have been long paid off by now considering the number of people/period of time/rate of pay we're talking about. We pay the military out of general revenue to begin with, so that fica is already paid with general revenue...basically, they just didn't put it in the right column for a while. Shell game.
Taxing (fica) benefits can only be done up to 106k, so we aren't necessarily talking about extremely wealthy people. We tax, put it under one of several cups, spin them around, pay some back and then take some from that. If you don't have a problem with that, fine. I'm tired, Larry.
Mike ...we have how many posts on this and only the last 3 do you mention the military?
come on guy.. you backside is showing big time...
"
My point with the above post is pretty clear: Since the military reimbursement started (chump change when it began, now 100+ billion per year) the transfer from general revenue in that column is responsible for the surplus, and that surplus will now have to be replenished by issuing new debt because it's been replaced with iou's."
not unless you think OTHER govt employers are ALSO diverting money from the general fund...
ALL employers pay the FICA now...
because they voluntarily decided to move from an employer-only pension to include SS.
now - you tell me you're worried about the deficit/debt but now you're singing a tune opposing the CONCEPT of payroll taxes for SS.
which is what I originally accused you of and you denied it.
we tax SS for higher income because what's taken out in FICA is not taxed... and if you think about it... 401Ks work the same way..
tax-free into the 401K..then when you take it out - it's taxed.
but you need to think about the military guy... if they did not put money into SS - they'd have to put money into some other pension fund...
it was a policy decision on the part of the military and civilian govt to move from defined benefit pensions to defined contribution pensions plus social security.
The govt - as employer - does pay all salaries..health care and pensions out of general revenues.
true enough.
but that does not make it a ponzi scheme or something untoward.
what would you do instead?
it's just that in the opinion of the military and civilian govt.. they felt that SS + defined contribution was the way to go.
SS is considered by ALL employers to be the safety net.. for folks who never end up with high income careers...
I get tired too guy..from having to correct the record.. from folks who don't do due diligence before they form a position ...
I notice that you DID start looking at SS data - even as you said you did not trust it.
so you must have decided that you did trust it?
I mean after all ..what you showed me..they could have been lying their ass off, eh?
well..congrats on taking the plunge!
:-)
one final thing..
you won't find me defending Medicare Part B nor MedicAid - both of which have trust funds and both of which are heavily funded from the general fund - and together consume around 800 billion out of the 2.1T (general fund) budget.
Medicare part B is VOLUNTARY and not funded from payroll taxes and it IS the wolf at the budget door.
As it turns out Any and all entitlements that are health care are in big trouble... whether it be Medicare Part A, B, C, D, or MediAID or the Govt employees health care of the military (Tricare)...
all of them will wipe out the future budgets if we don't do something.
I have yet to hear from those opposed to ObamaCare what we do instead... but it's the budget demon we must deal with IMHO.
Mike - the problem with the military including civilian DOD is that they have significantly more employees than they did a decade ago...
as well as homeland security, the border patrol and immigration.
every DOD, Homeland Security, Immigration/Border Patrol employee "costs" the general fund and contributes significantly to the deficit.
it's not SS that is the problem... if they were not paying SS..they'd be paying pensions...
pensions and health care are two biggie benefits that attract people into the volunteer army...
but it has significant costs...to include health care for families.
now days.. if you are a high school graduate - your job prospects are not good ... and the military is one of the few places where you can get a job with pension and health care benefits.
Larry,
"Mike ...we have how many posts on this and only the last 3 do you mention the military?"
I was only doing what you asked me to do....look at your links.
Sorry, I shouldn't have listened to you, but I tried to see your point in the method you suggested. Doesn't change my original point of the raiding of the surplus with boomer retirement starting, and the fact that the surplus is going to have to be bought back with new debt.
"now - you tell me you're worried about the deficit/debt but now you're singing a tune opposing the CONCEPT of payroll taxes for SS."
Huh? Where did I say that?
"we tax SS for higher income because what's taken out in FICA is not taxed... and if you think about it... 401Ks work the same way.."
Well, gosh, it sure does make me feel better knowing that they don't tax the tax they already took. And, no, I have a choice with my 401k and they only let me put a tiny portion of my income in pre-tax (that will eventually be taxed). And fica only taxes up to 106k. That is not high income...that's 'up to a high-ish income'.
"it was a policy decision on the part of the military and civilian govt to move from defined benefit pensions to defined contribution pensions plus social security."
That's all well and good...my point is that the hundreds of billions that have been put in should have covered this decision by now for the time period they describe.
"you won't find me defending Medicare Part B nor MedicAid"
Thank God. On that we can agree. And, it seems, we can agree it makes SS look like perfection.
"every DOD, Homeland Security, Immigration/Border Patrol employee "costs" the general fund and contributes significantly to the deficit."
I know this and believe I stated as much several times.
A significant reason why they've stolen our money.
Mike - people want the military.
they want the seals.
they want the drones.
they want the tomahawks and Tridents...
they want the border patrol.
they want immigration and homeland security.
right?
I'm not sure how we reconcile the "stolen" ..here...
but I favor dealing with the realities .
these things cost us a bunch of money.. and in fact, we wanted them all but we did not want to pay the taxes needed to fund them.
we want tax cuts but we also want all these things...
the only politician who has had the guts to provide a real balanced budget proposal is Ron Paul and he has a snowball chance... of even getting the Republican nod...
Post a Comment
<< Home