Biden has yet to say just how he would strengthen Social Security and Medicare trust funds

[nauseus]

On 2/11/2023 at 6:46 AM, Credo said:

Oh, gee, I am still waiting for the Republican plan where they were going to cut it.   They never did specify exactly what would cut -- except Rick Scott, who was just going to end it.   

His statement was made on Tuesday and on Friday. you want a plan?

Why not let Biden's specifics come to light first, as per the topic title?

[nauseus]

On 2/11/2023 at 4:09 PM, GroveHillWanderer said:

When it comes to fiscal responsibility, I think you'll find have your parties backwards.

 

At least since the Reagan presidency, Republicans have consistently increased the federal deficit, while Democrats have regularly reduced it.

 

According to the figures in the article below, which come from the Research Division of the Federal Bank of St. Louis, Reagan took the deficit from $79 billion to $152 billion. Bush 41 took it to $255 billion. Clinton got it to a surplus of $128 billion. Bush 43 took it from a surplus, to $1.4 trillion deficit. Obama more than halved the deficit to $600 billion. As of June 2019, Trump was on course to get it back to over $1.1 trillion.

 

Here's how the deficit performed under Republican and Democratic presidents, from Reagan to Trump

 

In fact, Trump left the White House with the largest peacetime budget deficit in American history and a national debt exceeding 100% of the economy for the first time since World War II.

 

So the idea that the Republicans are better than the Democrats at finding ways to pay for government spending is just completely wrong-headed.

 

The figures also show that Labour Governments in the UK are much better at running the economy than the general perception.

 

As the article below states, "despite the 2008-09 recession taking place on Labour’s watch, the party has only overseen seven quarters of recession in the past 100 years compared to 17 under the Conservatives."

 

Labour are much better at running the economy than voters think

No US regime has reduced the deficit in recent history i.e. this century. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by nauseus

[pomchop]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No US regime has reduced the deficit in recent history i.e. this century. 

but if you bother to read the stats highlighted in post above it is pretty obvious that over the past 50 years or so that republican regimes have consistently raised the deficit over and over and over..and gee if i recall obama was POTUS in this century....and your source of your claim is??..

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, pomchop said:

but if you bother to read the stats highlighted in post above it is pretty obvious that over the past 50 years or so that republican regimes have consistently raised the deficit over and over and over..and gee if i recall obama was POTUS in this century....and your source of your claim is??..

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/

 

Goalposts just went walkabout again, I'm not talking about which regimes have consistently raised the deficit over and over and over. Am I?

 

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/

[Tug]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

No US regime has reduced the deficit in recent history i.e. this century. 

Wayyy wayyy back in the year of our lord 2000 president Clinton balanced the budget created a surplus and reduced the deficit  also we have administrations not regimes here we are a democracy not a dictatorship or communist totalitarian state 

[Longwood50]

THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

 

This is one of the biggest mistruths ever told.  The money for social security is collected and sent to the treasury.  No different than the money taken that is witheld from your paycheck for tax witholding. 

It is "ear marked" as money to go into the social security trust fund.  After posting to the social security trust fund, it is still in the general fund and the trust fund uses those dollars to 'INVEST".  The investments are entirely U.S. Treasury Bonds.  Now what is a bond.  It is an IOU.  You buy a bond from a company it is borrowing the money from you, giving you a bond, which is a promise to pay you back your principal plus interest over time. 

So the investments in the Social Security Trust fund are IOU's that the U.S. government Issues.  In effect the Treasury Department owes the Social Security Trust Fund money. 

That is not "investing"  It is the equivalent of you receiving cash from your employer putting it in your pocket and then spending it but replacing it with a piece of paper called a bond stating that you intend to pay yourself back with interest per the terms of the bond.  

You can not loan yourself money and call it invested. In truth various leading publicatins including CNBC call social security the worlds largest Ponzi scheme and that is exactly what it is.   They are taking money from current workers to pay for the benefits being paid to older workers and if the witholding from current workers is insufficient borrowing to make up the difference. 

When they talk about the Trust Fund being depleted that only means that the bonds in the trust fund will be redeemed.  How will they be redeemed?  The Federal Government runs a huge trillion dollar deficit each year.  So the only way to get the money to cash in the bonds is to borrow more money. 

https://www.cnbc.com/id/28241636

 

 

 

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

 

This is one of the biggest mistruths ever told.  The money for social security is collected and sent to the treasury.  No different than the money taken that is witheld from your paycheck for tax witholding. 

It is "ear marked" as money to go into the social security trust fund.  After posting to the social security trust fund, it is still in the general fund and the trust fund uses those dollars to 'INVEST".  The investments are entirely U.S. Treasury Bonds.  Now what is a bond.  It is an IOU.  You buy a bond from a company it is borrowing the money from you, giving you a bond, which is a promise to pay you back your principal plus interest over time. 

So the investments in the Social Security Trust fund are IOU's that the U.S. government Issues.  In effect the Treasury Department owes the Social Security Trust Fund money. 

That is not "investing"  It is the equivalent of you receiving cash from your employer putting it in your pocket and then spending it but replacing it with a piece of paper called a bond stating that you intend to pay yourself back with interest per the terms of the bond.  

You can not loan yourself money and call it invested. In truth various leading publicatins including CNBC call social security the worlds largest Ponzi scheme and that is exactly what it is.   They are taking money from current workers to pay for the benefits being paid to older workers and if the witholding from current workers is insufficient borrowing to make up the difference. 

When they talk about the Trust Fund being depleted that only means that the bonds in the trust fund will be redeemed.  How will they be redeemed?  The Federal Government runs a huge trillion dollar deficit each year.  So the only way to get the money to cash in the bonds is to borrow more money. 

https://www.cnbc.com/id/28241636

 

 

 

Well, for one thing, the government could raise taxes. In the case of Social Security, as noted elsewhere, the Warren-Sanders proposal all by itself would for the next 75 years. 

Anyway, it's political suicide to pass legislation to renege on Social Security obligations. It won't happen.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

No US regime has reduced the deficit in recent history i.e. this century. 

Do you mean the national debt? Deficits are about revenue shortfalls for yearly budgets.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Do you mean the national debt? Deficits are about revenue shortfalls for yearly budgets.

No.

[bendejo]

Biden has yet to say just how he would strengthen Social Security and Medicare trust funds

How about "do," which is much more effective than "say"?

Bringing this issue to light in the glare of the  SOTU, attacking what the GOP has been trying to for the past 20+ years, well, that seems like a pretty effective move, no?

It's pretty disgusting the way these creeps make these proposals and then when asked to speak about them they deny saying it.  Like this guy:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/rick-scott-fox-news-taxes-medicare-social-security-1328178/

 

Spineless, deceitful, and cynical, the living embodiment of an old US sarcasm: flush twice, it's a long way to D.C.

 

 

[bendejo]

No US regime has reduced the deficit in recent history i.e. this century. 

 

Quote

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

 

And his GOP successor couldn't torpedo that fast enough, by sending (nearly) everyone a $500 check.

 

 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

No.

Well, I gave you a chance to have an out. I really can't believe that someone would make such a sweeping statement given that they have access to thing called Google. Once again, here's your statement:

"No US regime has reduced the deficit in recent history i.e. this century."

And here are the facts:

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

 

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, I gave you a chance to have an out. I really can't believe that someone would make such a sweeping statement given that they have access to thing called Google. Once again, here's your statement:

"No US regime has reduced the deficit in recent history i.e. this century."

And here are the facts:

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

 

There are occasional examples of deficit reductions year-year, even Bush had some. Clinton had the best results in this respect for sure (very conservative ????) and the last four years especially. But even giving him the best financial years affected by his policies (1998-2001) Clinton's term average was still a 24 billion/year increase, overall.

 

 

[placeholder]

36 minutes ago, nauseus said:

There are occasional examples of deficit reductions year-year, even Bush had some. Clinton had the best results in this respect for sure (very conservative ????) and the last four years especially. But even giving him the best financial years affected by his policies (1998-2001) Clinton's term average was still a 24 billion/year increase, overall.

 

 

Deficits for an annual phenomenon. What you 're claiming now may be what you meant, but it's not what you wrote before.

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Deficits for an annual phenomenon. What you 're claiming now may be what you meant, but it's not what you wrote before.

Yes, it's not I wrote before. But I think you can see what I meant.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/11/2023 at 12:46 PM, Credo said:

Oh, gee, I am still waiting for the Republican plan where they were going to cut it.   They never did specify exactly what would cut -- except Rick Scott, who was just going to end it.   

His statement was made on Tuesday and on Friday. you want a plan?

Hmmmmm, spending billions on Ukraine, spending billions on his programs that he got passed by a majority Democrat house ( they'd never stand a chance now ), and now he's going to spend billions on these. Considering the debt ceiling and a hostile house ( which controls the money ) where is he getting the money from to keep those promises?

IMO just more pie in the sky from a politician desperate to have a legacy not all failure.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm, spending billions on Ukraine, spending billions on his programs that he got passed by a majority Democrat house ( they'd never stand a chance now ), and now he's going to spend billions on these. Considering the debt ceiling and a hostile house ( which controls the money ) where is he getting the money from to keep those promises?

IMO just more pie in the sky from a politician desperate to have a legacy not all failure.

And creating growth and jobs.

[bendejo]

On 2/12/2023 at 7:11 AM, Longwood50 said:

THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

Ah, so that is why my Social Security check this month was for $0.00

 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm, spending billions on Ukraine, spending billions on his programs that he got passed by a majority Democrat house ( they'd never stand a chance now ), and now he's going to spend billions on these. Considering the debt ceiling and a hostile house ( which controls the money ) where is he getting the money from to keep those promises?

IMO just more pie in the sky from a politician desperate to have a legacy not all failure.

Because tax increases are an imaginary phenomenon?

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes, it's not I wrote before. But I think you can see what I meant.

Now I do.

[Peabody]

On 2/11/2023 at 5:02 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

The only question applicable to the subject of discussion is how is President Biden going to fund Social Security.

Pssst...bloated military budget

Plus taxes yada yada

[Eric Loh]

35 minutes ago, Peabody said:

Pssst...bloated military budget

Plus taxes yada yada

Go for the Bernie's bill.