Tim Geithner deliberately told to LIE by the WHITEHOUSE

[Missouri_Mike]

Would you like to prove that Social Security is paying out more than it's taking in, and therefore is adding materially to the deficit?

All taxes go to the Treasury and are spent. Much of it is wasted. SS is therefore an unfunded liability. The govt spends more than it takes in, no matter how much it takes in. It borrows to pay what it doesn't have enough to pay for. Therefore, SS adds to the deficit/debt any way you slice it.

Accounting tricks and parsing words do nothing to support your argument.

Payroll taxes do not 'go' to the Treasury. They are loaned to the Treasury by the SS Trust Fund. SS is a creditor, not a debtor. SS doesn't borrow, it loans. SS cannot therefore be adding to the deficit,

any more than the Chinese are, or US money market funds are, or your kid with his Savings Bond is.

How is SS a creditor when they are losing money? How do you give people credit when you have a negative cash flow? You can't really loan people money if you owe money, you don' have any money. And you sure as hell don't have tome on your side to collect any interest.

On top of that based on your logic you are actually loaning money you don't have to a company (The United States) that is sitting on a 17 trillion dollar debt, heading for 20 trillion and has unfunded liabilities of 97 trillion. And of those unfunded liabilities YOU the so called creditor are a major portion of.

Yet you seem to see a way to work out of this spiral. Please explain to me how you can take a negative cash flow and invest in a business that is 17 trillion in debt with no other option but to go into 20 trillion in debt is a wise investment.

Why would anyone ever do that?

 

[asterism]

Would you like to prove that Social Security is paying out more than it's taking in, and therefore is adding materially to the deficit?

All taxes go to the Treasury and are spent. Much of it is wasted. SS is therefore an unfunded liability. The govt spends more than it takes in, no matter how much it takes in. It borrows to pay what it doesn't have enough to pay for. Therefore, SS adds to the deficit/debt any way you slice it.

Accounting tricks and parsing words do nothing to support your argument.

Payroll taxes do not 'go' to the Treasury. They are loaned to the Treasury by the SS Trust Fund. SS is a creditor, not a debtor. SS doesn't borrow, it loans. SS cannot therefore be adding to the deficit,

any more than the Chinese are, or US money market funds are, or your kid with his Savings Bond is.

They actually do go to the Treasury since that is who manages the trust fund.

The problem with the spin on Social Security and government spending is that it all comes from the same place. Regardless of the internal accounting, every dollar that is paid out comes from a taxpayer. The government borrows from itself to mask the true nature of spending and obligations.

Social Security is only a creditor as a means of internal accounting, like me taking money from my retirement savings to buy a trip to Vegas next week. Unless I actually replenish those funds I am running a financial deficit against future obligations. The money taken from the Social Security trust fund that is earmarked for future expenses has never been replenished, it has only been managed to meet current cash flow requirements.

 

[asterism]

All taxes go to the Treasury and are spent. Much of it is wasted. SS is therefore an unfunded liability. The govt spends more than it takes in, no matter how much it takes in. It borrows to pay what it doesn't have enough to pay for. Therefore, SS adds to the deficit/debt any way you slice it.

Accounting tricks and parsing words do nothing to support your argument.

Payroll taxes do not 'go' to the Treasury. They are loaned to the Treasury by the SS Trust Fund. SS is a creditor, not a debtor. SS doesn't borrow, it loans. SS cannot therefore be adding to the deficit,

any more than the Chinese are, or US money market funds are, or your kid with his Savings Bond is.

How is SS a creditor when they are losing money? How do you give people credit when you have a negative cash flow? You can't really loan people money if you owe money, you don' have any money. And you sure as hell don't have tome on your side to collect any interest.

On top of that based on your logic you are actually loaning money you don't have to a company (The United States) that is sitting on a 17 trillion dollar debt, heading for 20 trillion and has unfunded liabilities of 97 trillion. And of those unfunded liabilities YOU the so called creditor are a major portion of.

Yet you seem to see a way to work out of this spiral. Please explain to me how you can take a negative cash flow and invest in a business that is 17 trillion in debt with no other option but to go into 20 trillion in debt is a wise investment.

Why would anyone ever do that?

Social Security is still paying out less than it takes in.

OASI Trust Fund, a Social Security fund

 

[candycorn]

SS Supports itself. And will for the foreseeable future.

Yep if the foreseeable future is only 19 years, before drastic reductions in benefits will have to take place.

Then you simply adjust payroll taxes and/or benefit payouts to bring it actuarily in line for another 50 or 75 years.

He's from Texas...he'll get it in about 19 years.

 

[The Professor]

According to The Heritage Foundation:

“Since 2010, Social Security has taken in less money through payroll tax revenues than it pays out in benefits, generating cash-flow deficits. Social Security’s 2012 cash-flow deficit was $55 billion."

“Social Security covers cash-flow deficits by drawing down interest payments from the U.S. Treasury on previous trust fund borrowing. Cash-flow deficits mean the Treasury can no longer cover interest payments to the Social Security trust fund by issuing additional IOUs; instead, it must produce actual cash from taxes or borrowing. Thus, Social Security is adding to today’s deficits.”

“It is true that the Social Security trust fund represents legitimate repayments plus interest, but this distinction has no bearing on the federal budget’s bottom line. Imagine a family that sets aside money for a child’s college education but then borrows all of that money for other spending. Once the time for college arrives, the family will have to scramble to pay tuition because the IOUs in the college account represent money the family must pay itself."

“So it is with Social Security’s trust fund. Congress spent all the excess revenues when Social Security was running surpluses, and now repaying those revenues is adding to deficits.”

2013 Social Security Trust Fund Reports Massive Deficits, Benefit Cuts

While it is true that the Social Security system did not add to the deficit, the repayment of the money borrowed from that system is currently adding to the deficit. If the government had not borrowed from what is erroneously called the Social Security Trust Fund, there would be no problem as there would be sufficient funds (about $2.6 trillion) available to cover current obligations. However, such funds have already been spent and essentially replaced with IOUs. Thus, when there is a shortfall (the government spends more money on Social Security payments than they take in with payroll taxes), the shortfall must be covered with real dollars which adds to the deficit.

But that is just my own humble opinion.

 

[asterism]

According to The Heritage Foundation:

“Since 2010, Social Security has taken in less money through payroll tax revenues than it pays out in benefits, generating cash-flow deficits. Social Security’s 2012 cash-flow deficit was $55 billion."

“Social Security covers cash-flow deficits by drawing down interest payments from the U.S. Treasury on previous trust fund borrowing. Cash-flow deficits mean the Treasury can no longer cover interest payments to the Social Security trust fund by issuing additional IOUs; instead, it must produce actual cash from taxes or borrowing. Thus, Social Security is adding to today’s deficits.”

“It is true that the Social Security trust fund represents legitimate repayments plus interest, but this distinction has no bearing on the federal budget’s bottom line. Imagine a family that sets aside money for a child’s college education but then borrows all of that money for other spending. Once the time for college arrives, the family will have to scramble to pay tuition because the IOUs in the college account represent money the family must pay itself."

“So it is with Social Security’s trust fund. Congress spent all the excess revenues when Social Security was running surpluses, and now repaying those revenues is adding to deficits.”

2013 Social Security Trust Fund Reports Massive Deficits, Benefit Cuts

While it is true that the Social Security system did not add to the deficit, the repayment of the money borrowed from that system is currently adding to the deficit. If the government had not borrowed from what is erroneously called the Social Security Trust Fund, there would be no problem as there would be sufficient funds (about $2.6 trillion) available to cover current obligations. However, such funds have already been spent and essentially replaced with IOUs. Thus, when there is a shortfall (the government spends more money on Social Security payments than they take in with payroll taxes), the shortfall must be covered with real dollars which adds to the deficit.

But that is just my own humble opinion.

Your overall point is true, but heritage got the numbers wrong. Social Security still runs a surplus.

 

[The Professor]

According to The Heritage Foundation:

“Since 2010, Social Security has taken in less money through payroll tax revenues than it pays out in benefits, generating cash-flow deficits. Social Security’s 2012 cash-flow deficit was $55 billion."

“Social Security covers cash-flow deficits by drawing down interest payments from the U.S. Treasury on previous trust fund borrowing. Cash-flow deficits mean the Treasury can no longer cover interest payments to the Social Security trust fund by issuing additional IOUs; instead, it must produce actual cash from taxes or borrowing. Thus, Social Security is adding to today’s deficits.”

“It is true that the Social Security trust fund represents legitimate repayments plus interest, but this distinction has no bearing on the federal budget’s bottom line. Imagine a family that sets aside money for a child’s college education but then borrows all of that money for other spending. Once the time for college arrives, the family will have to scramble to pay tuition because the IOUs in the college account represent money the family must pay itself."

“So it is with Social Security’s trust fund. Congress spent all the excess revenues when Social Security was running surpluses, and now repaying those revenues is adding to deficits.”

2013 Social Security Trust Fund Reports Massive Deficits, Benefit Cuts

While it is true that the Social Security system did not add to the deficit, the repayment of the money borrowed from that system is currently adding to the deficit. If the government had not borrowed from what is erroneously called the Social Security Trust Fund, there would be no problem as there would be sufficient funds (about $2.6 trillion) available to cover current obligations. However, such funds have already been spent and essentially replaced with IOUs. Thus, when there is a shortfall (the government spends more money on Social Security payments than they take in with payroll taxes), the shortfall must be covered with real dollars which adds to the deficit.

But that is just my own humble opinion.

Your overall point is true, but heritage got the numbers wrong. Social Security still runs a surplus.

The Heritage Foundation got it right. They acknowledged there is a surplus but only on paper. In reality, the surplus consists entirely of IOUs in the form of Government securities. This is from the link I provided:

“In the past, when Social Security ran cash-flow surpluses, the federal government spent those surpluses on other federal spending, and in return, the Treasury credited Social Security’s trust fund with special-issue government securities. Although this $2.7 trillion in securities is not counted in the total amount of debt held by the public, it represents real debt that will have to be repaid over the coming decades.”

The Heritage Institution pointed out, as I also tried to do, that the when there is a shortfall the government could not print more IOUs to make up the difference. Instead, REAL MONEY would have to be used to pay the balance to Social Security recipients. The payment of the government's obligations to the Social Security system causes an increase in the deficit.

In simple terms, when a government already heavily burdened with debt must pay additional debt (repayment of money borrowed from Social Security) the overall deficit will increase.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, Social Security does not increase the deficit!

It does increase the debt. Every time Obama or Congress borrows from the intragovernmental fund it increases the national debt. We also have to pay interest on that loan which increases the debt. Foreign countries only hold less than $6 trillion of the national debt. The rest is owed to domestic entities.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yep if the foreseeable future is only 19 years, before drastic reductions in benefits will have to take place.

Then you simply adjust payroll taxes and/or benefit payouts to bring it actuarily in line for another 50 or 75 years.

He's from Texas...he'll get it in about 19 years.

At the rate we're going in 19 years Social Security and Medicare will be gone. They'll be phased out with nothing to replace them. All we'll be left with is debt. All of that money we pay out in payroll taxes will have been eaten up, thanks to Obama and thanks to Congress. Obama is simply speeding the process up.

This is a lesson to the wise. Never elect anyone who can't balance a budget because they'll eventually end up stealing from us to make up for their poor spending habits.

 

[candycorn]

Then you simply adjust payroll taxes and/or benefit payouts to bring it actuarily in line for another 50 or 75 years.

He's from Texas...he'll get it in about 19 years.

At the rate we're going in 19 years Social Security and Medicare will be gone. They'll be phased out with nothing to replace them. All we'll be left with is debt. All of that money we pay out in payroll taxes will have been eaten up, thanks to Obama and thanks to Congress. Obama is simply speeding the process up.

This is a lesson to the wise. Never elect anyone who can't balance a budget because they'll eventually end up stealing from us to make up for their poor spending habits.

More "The Sky is Falling" clap trap from the professional victim. Put on your big-girl panties and deal with it.

 

[bedowin62]

He's from Texas...he'll get it in about 19 years.

At the rate we're going in 19 years Social Security and Medicare will be gone. They'll be phased out with nothing to replace them. All we'll be left with is debt. All of that money we pay out in payroll taxes will have been eaten up, thanks to Obama and thanks to Congress. Obama is simply speeding the process up.

This is a lesson to the wise. Never elect anyone who can't balance a budget because they'll eventually end up stealing from us to make up for their poor spending habits.

More "The Sky is Falling" clap trap from the professional victim. Put on your big-girl panties and deal with it.

laughable liberal loser; to even talk of a sky is falling mentality

did the world end over the sequester leftard?

 

[candycorn]

Then you simply adjust payroll taxes and/or benefit payouts to bring it actuarily in line for another 50 or 75 years.

He's from Texas...he'll get it in about 19 years.

At the rate we're going in 19 years Social Security and Medicare will be gone. They'll be phased out with nothing to replace them. All we'll be left with is debt. All of that money we pay out in payroll taxes will have been eaten up, thanks to Obama and thanks to Congress. Obama is simply speeding the process up.

This is a lesson to the wise. Never elect anyone who can't balance a budget because they'll eventually end up stealing from us to make up for their poor spending habits.

And the last GOP President to balance the budget was _____________

 

[mudwhistle]

He's from Texas...he'll get it in about 19 years.

At the rate we're going in 19 years Social Security and Medicare will be gone. They'll be phased out with nothing to replace them. All we'll be left with is debt. All of that money we pay out in payroll taxes will have been eaten up, thanks to Obama and thanks to Congress. Obama is simply speeding the process up.

This is a lesson to the wise. Never elect anyone who can't balance a budget because they'll eventually end up stealing from us to make up for their poor spending habits.

More "The Sky is Falling" clap trap from the professional victim. Put on your big-girl panties and deal with it.

Bush said that banking was in danger of having a massive collapse way back in 2003 if something didn't change and Barney Frank poo-pooed it.

Liberals talk about a 1 degree change in temperature being the end of the world yet they tell us that massive government spending is good for the economy. Well, spending leads to tax increases which effects everyone's budget, which leads to cutting back, which leads to recessions. The Middle-class is already stretched to the breaking point and Obama's vote buying schemes are constantly adding to the debt. We can't afford 8 more years of this ridiculous spending and over taxation.

 

[mudwhistle]

He's from Texas...he'll get it in about 19 years.

At the rate we're going in 19 years Social Security and Medicare will be gone. They'll be phased out with nothing to replace them. All we'll be left with is debt. All of that money we pay out in payroll taxes will have been eaten up, thanks to Obama and thanks to Congress. Obama is simply speeding the process up.

This is a lesson to the wise. Never elect anyone who can't balance a budget because they'll eventually end up stealing from us to make up for their poor spending habits.

And the last GOP President to balance the budget was _____________

A red-herring.

Congress is in charge of spending. The president simply submits a budget for their approval. It is a recommendation. Obama hasn't had one of his silly budgets pass. He gets zero votes whenever he does submit one, and only does because it is required by law. It takes total cooperation for a balanced budget. It also takes discipline, something neither Congress Obama have.

 

[candycorn]

At the rate we're going in 19 years Social Security and Medicare will be gone. They'll be phased out with nothing to replace them. All we'll be left with is debt. All of that money we pay out in payroll taxes will have been eaten up, thanks to Obama and thanks to Congress. Obama is simply speeding the process up.

This is a lesson to the wise. Never elect anyone who can't balance a budget because they'll eventually end up stealing from us to make up for their poor spending habits.

And the last GOP President to balance the budget was _____________

A red-herring.

Congress is in charge of spending. The president simply submits a budget for their approval. It is a recommendation. Obama hasn't had one of his silly budgets pass. He gets zero votes whenever he does submits one, and only does because it is required by law. It takes total cooperation for a balanced budget. It also takes discipline, something neither Congress Obama have.

Gee, you found something Obama isn't responsible for, our deficit. Thanks. Somehow, I'm sure that's not what you meant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A Social Security shortfall would be if Social Security's payouts for the year exceed its income for that year.

That has not happened, therefore, you are wrong and I am right.

What you are is an ignoramus extraordinaire.

Social Security has been running in the red for several years and will see a 12 percent gap between the taxes it’s collecting and the benefits it’s projected to pay out over the next 10 years, according to a report Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

And the problem will only get worse as the years go on, CBO said.

Social Security to run 12% deficit for next decade - Washington Times

You are wrong and ineducable. A very serious condition.

Prove me wrong. Do you understand that the SS Trust Fund earns interest on its bonds?

 

[NYcarbineer]

At the rate we're going in 19 years Social Security and Medicare will be gone. They'll be phased out with nothing to replace them. All we'll be left with is debt. All of that money we pay out in payroll taxes will have been eaten up, thanks to Obama and thanks to Congress. Obama is simply speeding the process up.

This is a lesson to the wise. Never elect anyone who can't balance a budget because they'll eventually end up stealing from us to make up for their poor spending habits.

More "The Sky is Falling" clap trap from the professional victim. Put on your big-girl panties and deal with it.

laughable liberal loser; to even talk of a sky is falling mentality

did the world end over the sequester leftard?

That would be the sequester that Republicans blamed on Obama, right?

Oh my, yes it would. Good for you for giving the President credit for the sequester.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All taxes go to the Treasury and are spent. Much of it is wasted. SS is therefore an unfunded liability. The govt spends more than it takes in, no matter how much it takes in. It borrows to pay what it doesn't have enough to pay for. Therefore, SS adds to the deficit/debt any way you slice it.

Accounting tricks and parsing words do nothing to support your argument.

Payroll taxes do not 'go' to the Treasury. They are loaned to the Treasury by the SS Trust Fund. SS is a creditor, not a debtor. SS doesn't borrow, it loans. SS cannot therefore be adding to the deficit,

any more than the Chinese are, or US money market funds are, or your kid with his Savings Bond is.

How is SS a creditor when they are losing money? How do you give people credit when you have a negative cash flow? You can't really loan people money if you owe money, you don' have any money. And you sure as hell don't have tome on your side to collect any interest.

On top of that based on your logic you are actually loaning money you don't have to a company (The United States) that is sitting on a 17 trillion dollar debt, heading for 20 trillion and has unfunded liabilities of 97 trillion. And of those unfunded liabilities YOU the so called creditor are a major portion of.

Yet you seem to see a way to work out of this spiral. Please explain to me how you can take a negative cash flow and invest in a business that is 17 trillion in debt with no other option but to go into 20 trillion in debt is a wise investment.

Why would anyone ever do that?

SS is not losing money. This the problem with you people. You will never research anything for yourselves, instead you rely on some idiot on the radio to do your thinking for you.

The US government owes the SS trust fund 2.5 trillion dollars. The trust fund makes 100 billion a year off that just in interest payments.

 

[jon_berzerk]

White House Wanted Him to Lie, Claims a Former Obama Cabinet Official | LibertyNEWS.com
“I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.” - See more at: White House Wanted Him to Lie, Claims a Former Obama Cabinet Official | LibertyNEWS.com

i would be surprised if the admin hasnt asked someone NOT to lie

to the American peoples

 

[mudwhistle]

More "The Sky is Falling" clap trap from the professional victim. Put on your big-girl panties and deal with it.

laughable liberal loser; to even talk of a sky is falling mentality

did the world end over the sequester leftard?

That would be the sequester that Republicans blamed on Obama, right?

Oh my, yes it would. Good for you for giving the President credit for the sequester.

The sequester was Obama's idea. We have YouTube videos of him threatening Congress if they back out on it as well. Obama refused to negotiate in good faith so any budget agreements would fall thru, so the sequester would kick in automatically and this allowed him to gut the defense budget.