Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not only do I have a legal right to SS, I'm collecting it right now as a retiree!!!

No you don't, moron.

Many people believe that Social Security is an earned right-that is, they believe they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits because they have paid Social Security taxes. However, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legal right to Social Security: Congress can cut or eliminate Social Security benefits at any time regardless of a worker's contributions.

And a spouse DOES get survivors benefits after their mate dies. Even divorced spouses can get SS benefits

Your spouse has legal rights to the "bonds held in trust for you"? That's funny.

That, of course, is a misrepresentation of the court decision which upheld that, like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding SS eligibility. Nestor was an alien who was deported and the RULES in place at the time allowed his benefits to be denied, just as the RULES in place today allow me to collect SS.

Until Congress changes the rules, the money in the SS Trust account belongs to the beneficiaries according to the rules of the trust account. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. The present rules have to be changed to take the money away from the people, which is what the GOP hopes to do.

The money belongs to you, unless Congress changes the rules?
Doesn't sound like a trust to me.
Besides, you already said their was nothing in the "Trust Fund".
Change your mind already?

 

[edthecynic]

No you don't, moron.

Many people believe that Social Security is an earned right-that is, they believe they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits because they have paid Social Security taxes. However, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legal right to Social Security: Congress can cut or eliminate Social Security benefits at any time regardless of a worker's contributions.

Your spouse has legal rights to the "bonds held in trust for you"? That's funny.

That, of course, is a misrepresentation of the court decision which upheld that, like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding SS eligibility. Nestor was an alien who was deported and the RULES in place at the time allowed his benefits to be denied, just as the RULES in place today allow me to collect SS.

Until Congress changes the rules, the money in the SS Trust account belongs to the beneficiaries according to the rules of the trust account. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. The present rules have to be changed to take the money away from the people, which is what the GOP hopes to do.

The money belongs to you, unless Congress changes the rules?
Doesn't sound like a trust to me.
Besides, you already said their was nothing in the "Trust Fund".
Change your mind already?

The way the SS Trust fund is presently set up, the people are the beneficiaries and the Congress is the trustee. So until the law is changed the Congress only manages the trust fund, it is not their money.

And I said there are no real assets in the trust fund, only IOUs for the BORROWED money. The money was borrowed to cover yearly government deficit spending, like the 500 billion deficit spending in 2007.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That, of course, is a misrepresentation of the court decision which upheld that, like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding SS eligibility. Nestor was an alien who was deported and the RULES in place at the time allowed his benefits to be denied, just as the RULES in place today allow me to collect SS.

Until Congress changes the rules, the money in the SS Trust account belongs to the beneficiaries according to the rules of the trust account. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. The present rules have to be changed to take the money away from the people, which is what the GOP hopes to do.

The money belongs to you, unless Congress changes the rules?
Doesn't sound like a trust to me.
Besides, you already said their was nothing in the "Trust Fund".
Change your mind already?

The way the SS Trust fund is presently set up, the people are the beneficiaries and the Congress is the trustee. So until the law is changed the Congress only manages the trust fund, it is not their money.

And I said there are no real assets in the trust fund, only IOUs for the BORROWED money. The money was borrowed to cover yearly government deficit spending, like the 500 billion deficit spending in 2007.

Government IOUs aren't real assets?
What about the T-Bills I hold, are they real assets?
If I bought a T-Bond in 2007, is that a real asset?
Figure out how to read a balance sheet yet?

 

[edthecynic]

The money belongs to you, unless Congress changes the rules?
Doesn't sound like a trust to me.
Besides, you already said their was nothing in the "Trust Fund".
Change your mind already?

The way the SS Trust fund is presently set up, the people are the beneficiaries and the Congress is the trustee. So until the law is changed the Congress only manages the trust fund, it is not their money.

And I said there are no real assets in the trust fund, only IOUs for the BORROWED money. The money was borrowed to cover yearly government deficit spending, like the 500 billion deficit spending in 2007.

Government IOUs aren't real assets?
What about the T-Bills I hold, are they real assets?
If I bought a T-Bond in 2007, is that a real asset?
Figure out how to read a balance sheet yet?

The IOUs in the trust fund are not real assets because, as you showed, the Extreme Court has upheld the fact that the trust fund rules can be changed after the money has been collected. Which is exactly what the GOP is trying to do. The yield on your 2007 T-Bond was set in 2007, if in 2009 the T-Bond yield changes, that affects only the 2009 T-Bonds not your 2007 T-Bond.

 

[BenNatuf]

The people OWN the bonds held in TRUST by the government.

LOL! That's funny. You have no legal right to Social Security.
Why doesn't your spouse get your share after you die? It's held in trust for you.
Man, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

It is NOT the government's money, that is why when the government borrows from the account they have to put in an IOU. They owe the people who own the money they borrowed from the trust account. That is how a trust account works. The trustee only controls the account, they do not own the account and at some point must return the money in the trust to the true owners.

Your imaginings about how Soc Sec works sounds like private accounts.
Unfortunately, they don't work that way.

Not only do I have a legal right to SS, I'm collecting it right now as a retiree!!!

.

I think I understand you better now, you're just one scared and stupid fucking old coot suffering from the onset of dimetia who wasn't smart enough to plan for your own fucking retirement. Here's a hint for you dumbass, the money you paid into SS is gone, not because the government borrowed it (in which case it wouldn't be "gone" at all) but because it was spent to pay the fucking stupid old coots sucking up your money while you were working. The SS trust fund is not a "savings" account holding your money you tremendously stupid fuck, it never was, and it was never designed to be. It's a fucking ponzie scheme where current retirees live off the taxes paid by current workers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The way the SS Trust fund is presently set up, the people are the beneficiaries and the Congress is the trustee. So until the law is changed the Congress only manages the trust fund, it is not their money.

And I said there are no real assets in the trust fund, only IOUs for the BORROWED money. The money was borrowed to cover yearly government deficit spending, like the 500 billion deficit spending in 2007.

Government IOUs aren't real assets?
What about the T-Bills I hold, are they real assets?
If I bought a T-Bond in 2007, is that a real asset?
Figure out how to read a balance sheet yet?

The IOUs in the trust fund are not real assets because, as you showed, the Extreme Court has upheld the fact that the trust fund rules can be changed after the money has been collected. Which is exactly what the GOP is trying to do. The yield on your 2007 T-Bond was set in 2007, if in 2009 the T-Bond yield changes, that affects only the 2009 T-Bonds not your 2007 T-Bond.

They aren't real assets? Great, then they don't have to be repaid and can't be counted in the debt.
Why are you mentioning yields?
I mean besides showing your confusion.

 

[BenNatuf]

Government IOUs aren't real assets?
What about the T-Bills I hold, are they real assets?
If I bought a T-Bond in 2007, is that a real asset?
Figure out how to read a balance sheet yet?

The IOUs in the trust fund are not real assets because, as you showed, the Extreme Court has upheld the fact that the trust fund rules can be changed after the money has been collected. Which is exactly what the GOP is trying to do. The yield on your 2007 T-Bond was set in 2007, if in 2009 the T-Bond yield changes, that affects only the 2009 T-Bonds not your 2007 T-Bond.

They aren't real assets? Great, then they don't have to be repaid and can't be counted in the debt.
Why are you mentioning yields?
I mean besides showing your confusion.

but... but... but...

You don't actually think the idiot is going to understand that do you?

 

[edthecynic]

LOL! That's funny. You have no legal right to Social Security.
Why doesn't your spouse get your share after you die? It's held in trust for you.
Man, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Your imaginings about how Soc Sec works sounds like private accounts.
Unfortunately, they don't work that way.

Not only do I have a legal right to SS, I'm collecting it right now as a retiree!!!

.

I think I understand you better now, you're just one scared and stupid fucking old coot suffering from the onset of dimetia who wasn't smart enough to plan for your own fucking retirement. Here's a hint for you dumbass, the money you paid into SS is gone, not because the government borrowed it (in which case it wouldn't be "gone" at all) but because it was spent to pay the fucking stupid old coots sucking up your money while you were working. The SS trust fund is not a "savings" account holding your money you trendously stupid fuck, it never was, and it was never designed to be. It's a fucking ponzie scheme where current retirees live off the taxes paid by current workers.

It was NOT spent on past retirees, it was paid to rich capital gains tycoons who did not contribute to the fund in the form of tax cuts by the GOP. Those "stupid old coots" paid over 2 trillion into the fund MORE than they took out.

 

[edthecynic]

Government IOUs aren't real assets?
What about the T-Bills I hold, are they real assets?
If I bought a T-Bond in 2007, is that a real asset?
Figure out how to read a balance sheet yet?

The IOUs in the trust fund are not real assets because, as you showed, the Extreme Court has upheld the fact that the trust fund rules can be changed after the money has been collected. Which is exactly what the GOP is trying to do. The yield on your 2007 T-Bond was set in 2007, if in 2009 the T-Bond yield changes, that affects only the 2009 T-Bonds not your 2007 T-Bond.

They aren't real assets? Great, then they don't have to be repaid and can't be counted in the debt.
Why are you mentioning yields?
I mean besides showing your confusion.

While that is the mantra of the GOP while they are deficit spending when there is a GOP president, they suddenly they become part of the debt as soon as a Dem becomes president and have to be paid back by our grandchildren.
Go figure!

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

 

[BenNatuf]

The IOUs in the trust fund are not real assets because, as you showed, the Extreme Court has upheld the fact that the trust fund rules can be changed after the money has been collected. Which is exactly what the GOP is trying to do. The yield on your 2007 T-Bond was set in 2007, if in 2009 the T-Bond yield changes, that affects only the 2009 T-Bonds not your 2007 T-Bond.

They aren't real assets? Great, then they don't have to be repaid and can't be counted in the debt.
Why are you mentioning yields?
I mean besides showing your confusion.

While that is the mantra of the GOP while they are deficit spending when there is a GOP president, they suddenly they become part of the debt as soon as a Dem becomes president and have to be paid back by our grandchildren.
Go figure!

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

I don't suppose it's dawned on your dumbass that you are the one arguing from the position that they are debt only and the bonds should not be counted as assets? Pick one side of the argument and stick to it, you don't get to flip flop back and forth and claim they're debt to make one point and then claim they're not to make another.

Either the bonds held by the trust fund have value or they don't. If they do, then the trust fund is flush and those assets have to be counted against the debt. If they don't then they are not debt to begin with. Pick one or the other and stick to it.

 

[edthecynic]

They aren't real assets? Great, then they don't have to be repaid and can't be counted in the debt.
Why are you mentioning yields?
I mean besides showing your confusion.

While that is the mantra of the GOP while they are deficit spending when there is a GOP president, they suddenly they become part of the debt as soon as a Dem becomes president and have to be paid back by our grandchildren.
Go figure!

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

I don't suppose it's dawned on your dumbass that you are the one arguing from the position that they are debt only and the bonds should not be counted as assets? Pick one side of the argument and stick to it, you don't get to flip flop back and forth and claim they're debt to make one point and then claim they're not to make another.

Either the bonds held by the trust fund have value or they don't. If they do, then the trust fund is flush and those assets have to be counted against the debt. If they don't then they are not debt to begin with. Pick one or the other and stick to it.

I'm arguing that there was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that had to be borrowed causing the national debt to rise 500 billion. It's you morons who are arguing that the 340 billion borrowed from intergovernmental funds does not have to be paid back so there was only 160 in deficit spending in 2007. You morons are counting the 340 billion as an asset when it is collected and then again as an asset after it is loaned out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While that is the mantra of the GOP while they are deficit spending when there is a GOP president, they suddenly they become part of the debt as soon as a Dem becomes president and have to be paid back by our grandchildren.
Go figure!

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

I don't suppose it's dawned on your dumbass that you are the one arguing from the position that they are debt only and the bonds should not be counted as assets? Pick one side of the argument and stick to it, you don't get to flip flop back and forth and claim they're debt to make one point and then claim they're not to make another.

Either the bonds held by the trust fund have value or they don't. If they do, then the trust fund is flush and those assets have to be counted against the debt. If they don't then they are not debt to begin with. Pick one or the other and stick to it.

I'm arguing that there was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that had to be borrowed causing the national debt to rise 500 billion. It's you morons who are arguing that the 340 billion borrowed from intergovernmental funds does not have to be paid back so there was only 160 in deficit spending in 2007. You morons are counting the 340 billion as an asset when it is collected and then again as an asset after it is loaned out.

The government only borrowed $160 billion that year.
If you want to talk about moving money from the left pocket to the right pocket of government, we can do that too.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

To correct that:

a quote ATTRIBUTED to the former Vice President by Mr. O'Neill.

 

[edthecynic]

* * * *
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

To correct that:

a quote ATTRIBUTED to the former Vice President by Mr. O'Neill.

It appeared in O'Neill's 2004 book and to this day has never been denied by Cheney. The quote was even cited by CON$ervative publications and economists to defend Bush's wild spending sprees!!! During the Bush Regime, deficit spending was billed as THE way to fight off a recession. My how the worm turns once a Dem becomes president!!!

Do Deficits Matter? | The Weekly Standard
Do Deficits Matter?
It depends on where you sit--and on which type of deficit you're talking about.
11:00 PM, FEB 14, 2005 • BY IRWIN M. STELZER

WHEN DICK CHENEY SAID, "Deficits don't matter," economists took that as proof of the economic illiteracy of the Bush administration. But it turns out there is a case to be made that Cheney was onto something.

On the deepest level, the vice president was echoing, in slightly exaggerated form, an idea put forward a few years ago by Irving Kristol, the Godfather of the neoconservatives who have had such a wide-ranging effect on Bush administration policy. Kristol wrote then, and still believes, that "We should figure out what we want before we calculate what we can afford, not the reverse."

On the political level, treating deficits as a non-issue also proved a successful strategy. After all, despite the torrent of red ink that splashed across the national budgets during his first term, George W. Bush was reelected by a substantial margin. Among John Kerry's other failures was his attempt to saddle the president with the label "profligate."

Which brings us to the economic level. The deficits that Bush ran up in the years in which the country was teetering on the verge of a serious recession had the beneficial effect of righting the economy. In that sense, deficits not only didn't matter, but were a force for economic good.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't suppose it's dawned on your dumbass that you are the one arguing from the position that they are debt only and the bonds should not be counted as assets? Pick one side of the argument and stick to it, you don't get to flip flop back and forth and claim they're debt to make one point and then claim they're not to make another.

Either the bonds held by the trust fund have value or they don't. If they do, then the trust fund is flush and those assets have to be counted against the debt. If they don't then they are not debt to begin with. Pick one or the other and stick to it.

I'm arguing that there was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that had to be borrowed causing the national debt to rise 500 billion. It's you morons who are arguing that the 340 billion borrowed from intergovernmental funds does not have to be paid back so there was only 160 in deficit spending in 2007. You morons are counting the 340 billion as an asset when it is collected and then again as an asset after it is loaned out.

The government only borrowed $160 billion that year.
If you want to talk about moving money from the left pocket to the right pocket of government, we can do that too.

If the government only borrowed 160 billion then 340 billion was stolen and you are back to saying there are no assets in the intergovernmental funds and any IOUs there are worthless because they don't have to be paid back.

However the national debt increased by 500 billion, so 500 billion was borrowed from somewhere to cover a 500 billion deficit. The money was NOT moved from one government pocket to another because the 340 billion in cash would still be in one of the pockets. The extra 340 billion borrowed is no longer cash in any governmental pocket.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm arguing that there was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that had to be borrowed causing the national debt to rise 500 billion. It's you morons who are arguing that the 340 billion borrowed from intergovernmental funds does not have to be paid back so there was only 160 in deficit spending in 2007. You morons are counting the 340 billion as an asset when it is collected and then again as an asset after it is loaned out.

The government only borrowed $160 billion that year.
If you want to talk about moving money from the left pocket to the right pocket of government, we can do that too.

If the government only borrowed 160 billion then 340 billion was stolen and you are back to saying there are no assets in the intergovernmental funds and any IOUs there are worthless because they don't have to be paid back.

However the national debt increased by 500 billion, so 500 billion was borrowed from somewhere to cover a 500 billion deficit. The money was NOT moved from one government pocket to another because the 340 billion in cash would still be in one of the pockets. The extra 340 billion borrowed is no longer cash in any governmental pocket.

The debt held by the public did not increase by $500 billion.
Receipts were $160 billion less than outlays.

 

[edthecynic]

The government only borrowed $160 billion that year.
If you want to talk about moving money from the left pocket to the right pocket of government, we can do that too.

If the government only borrowed 160 billion then 340 billion was stolen and you are back to saying there are no assets in the intergovernmental funds and any IOUs there are worthless because they don't have to be paid back.

However the national debt increased by 500 billion, so 500 billion was borrowed from somewhere to cover a 500 billion deficit. The money was NOT moved from one government pocket to another because the 340 billion in cash would still be in one of the pockets. The extra 340 billion borrowed is no longer cash in any governmental pocket.

The debt held by the public did not increase by $500 billion.
Receipts were $160 billion less than outlays.

But the TOTAL debt DID rise by 500 billion, so 340 billion was borrowed from somewhere in addition to the 160 billion borrowed from the public. 500 billion total was borrowed to cover a 500 billion in overspending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the government only borrowed 160 billion then 340 billion was stolen and you are back to saying there are no assets in the intergovernmental funds and any IOUs there are worthless because they don't have to be paid back.

However the national debt increased by 500 billion, so 500 billion was borrowed from somewhere to cover a 500 billion deficit. The money was NOT moved from one government pocket to another because the 340 billion in cash would still be in one of the pockets. The extra 340 billion borrowed is no longer cash in any governmental pocket.

The debt held by the public did not increase by $500 billion.
Receipts were $160 billion less than outlays.

But the TOTAL debt DID rise by 500 billion, so 340 billion was borrowed from somewhere in addition to the 160 billion borrowed from the public. 500 billion total was borrowed to cover a 500 billion in overspending.

What did the NET DEBT do?

 

[edthecynic]

The debt held by the public did not increase by $500 billion.
Receipts were $160 billion less than outlays.

But the TOTAL debt DID rise by 500 billion, so 340 billion was borrowed from somewhere in addition to the 160 billion borrowed from the public. 500 billion total was borrowed to cover a 500 billion in overspending.

What did the NET DEBT do?

There is no such thing as "net debt." That is just a category you made up, so it will do whatever you want it to, but it is completely meaningless. There is total debt which is broken up into two DEBT categories neither of which is called "net debt."

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Debt Held by the Public * Intragovernmental Holdings * Total Public Debt Outstanding

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the TOTAL debt DID rise by 500 billion, so 340 billion was borrowed from somewhere in addition to the 160 billion borrowed from the public. 500 billion total was borrowed to cover a 500 billion in overspending.

What did the NET DEBT do?

There is no such thing as "net debt." That is just a category you made up, so it will do whatever you want it to, but it is completely meaningless. There is total debt which is broken up into two DEBT categories neither of which is called "net debt."

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Debt Held by the Public * Intragovernmental Holdings * Total Public Debt Outstanding

Didn't make it up.
Found it here.

U.S. Government National Debt: What they Won't Tell You

It's the same number as Debt Held by the Public.
Because that's what net debt is.