Social Security Has Nothing to do with Deficit

[_Kevin Graham]

McConnell is just lying again.

If only Conservatives really understood what Reagan did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcpYch-8q18

I've explained this a million times myself. You could do away with Social Security, but if you do that you have to do away with the revenues from payroll taxes and it's a wash.

The existing deficit/debt still exists.

[_ajax18]

I've explained this a million times myself. You could do away with Social Security, but if you do that you have to do away with the revenues from payroll taxes and it's a wash.

Getting rid of the payroll taxes would be unacceptable to the swamp for sure. I think it's more likely they'll just keep raising the age and lowering the benefits. Then they could still keep raising the taxes to make up for the debt or just never pay the minimum interest payment on the debt and watch it grow.

[_Kevin Graham]

I've explained this a million times myself. You could do away with Social Security, but if you do that you have to do away with the revenues from payroll taxes and it's a wash.

Getting rid of the payroll taxes would be unacceptable to the swamp for sure. I think it's more likely they'll just keep raising the age and lowering the benefits. Then they could still keep raising the taxes to make up for the debt or just never pay the minimum interest payment on the debt and watch it grow.

Which is effectively robbing the people of their own money, which you're damned stupid enough to support because you don't understand how any of these benefits work.

[_Maxine Waters]

Which is effectively robbing the people of their own money, which you're ____ stupid enough to support because you don't understand how any of these benefits work.

I didn't say it wasn't. I just predict this is what will happen. The money was stolen long ago.

[_Kevin Graham]

Which is effectively robbing the people of their own money, which you're ____ stupid enough to support because you don't understand how any of these benefits work.

I didn't say it wasn't. I just predict this is what will happen. The money was stolen long ago.

It was never stolen. You seem to think there used to be a pile of cash and now its gone. You don't understand how currency works in government. Every damn virtual penny that has been "borrowed" from the SS trust fund has been paid back with interest. It has to be. By law.

[_subgenius]

Why listening to Obama supporters on the economy is a worthless, but amusing, endeavour:
Upon Trump's 2016 election:

~"We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.” Paul Krugman, Nobel winner and New York Times columnist.

~“Under Trump, I would expect a protracted recession to begin within 18 months. The damage would be felt far beyond the United States.” Larry Summers, former Harvard president and Treasury secretary.

~“President Trump could destroy the world economy.” Washington Post editorial.

~“Trump’s budget assumes 3% annual growth. . . . That’s extremely unlikely.” Jason Furman, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.

~“If Trump thinks he can get more than 3% growth, he’s dreaming.” Michael Hiltzik, Pulitzer-winning economics writer for the Los Angeles Times.

[_canpakes]

subs, you should probably keep the last two off your list as we haven’t seen the claimed 3% yearly growth yet that makes the Trump Magic supposedly happen.

[_cinepro]

It was never stolen. You seem to think there used to be a pile of cash and now its gone. You don't understand how currency works in government. Every damn virtual penny that has been "borrowed" from the SS trust fund has been paid back with interest. It has to be. By law.

It hasn't been "paid back" yet. The money that was borrowed in past years and put into the general fund will now have to be paid back to SS (thus creating a draw on the general fund).

The government has borrowed nearly $2.8 trillion as of 2014 from the Trust Fund and used the money for other purposes. Under current law, when the program goes into an annual cash deficit, the government has to seek alternate funding beyond the payroll taxes dedicated to the program to cover the shortfall. This reduces the trust fund balance to the extent this occurs. The program deficits are expected to exhaust the fund by 2034.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Se ... erspective

Yes, those draws are a reflection of past transfers, but that doesn't mean they won't be a factor in future budgets.

This is a good summary of what the future holds:

The trust fund is expected to peak in 2021 at approximately $3.0 trillion. If the parts of the budget outside of Social Security are in deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office and multiple budget expert panels assume for the foreseeable future, there are several implications:


-Additional debt must be issued to investors to obtain the funding necessary to pay this obligation. This will increase "debt held by the public" while simultaneously reducing the "intragovernmental debt" represented by the trust fund.

-CBO reported in 2015 that: "Continued growth in the debt might lead investors to doubt the government's willingness or ability to pay its obligations, which would require the government to pay much higher interest rates on its borrowing."

-Other parts of the budget may be modified, with higher taxes and lower expenditures in other areas to fund Social Security.

Ultimately, the money that goes back to Social Security will have to come from somewhere. It could be from higher taxes, lower spending, or additional borrowing, all of which introduce their own problems.

[_Dr Exiled]

Perhaps we won't be able to sustain all our wars across the globe any more? Too bad, I was just starting to like our exploding military budgets and all the "bad guys" we are killing.

[_Some Schmo]

Perhaps we won't be able to sustain all our wars across the globe any more? Too bad, I was just starting to like our exploding military budgets and all the "bad guys" we are killing.

It would be great if the US government decided to prioritize less big government spending on military and put that into making a country worth defending (instead of the shithole country we have where you're afraid to drive over or under an old bridge).

Our current priorities are like installing a $10,000 security system on a decrepit shack.