Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In the early 2000's our government gave huge tax breaks to rich people because we had a projected surplus. They could have put that money into social security. If they borrowed from the fund, put it back. Period.I like and want to keep social security but it needs to be fixed. My buddy from childhood moved to Australia and they way they do it there would be much better than here.
We also have waste and abuse that should be cleaned up
And we have people who should be on it that get denied
On top of that we have politicians who "borrowed" the funds
A better system needs to be implemented
What happens when Russia invades Ukraine and your stocks take a dump?You are a liberal idiot. No one is doing away with Social Security. The Republican plan since George W. Bush is to privatize Social Security. I don’t expect you to know what that means either. Idiots.
Bush wanted to allow 5% of Social Security to be invested in the stock market like 401k’s are with mutual funds. From there, build that up over much time. Never to reduce what current recipients are receiving. The stupid Democrats don’t want more capitalism. They want more socialism and control of those retired.
You're so stupid. Yea, if he imported them as illegals and kept them as illegals, you'd be right. Because they wouldn't be paying into the system.The only thing that will end SS is insolvency and Biden's importation of millions of illegal aliens is helping that along much more quickly.
I actually agree with you for once. People pay into SS they should be able to get it when they need it and they shouldn't have to work til they're 65In the early 2000's our government gave huge tax breaks to rich people because we had a projected surplus. They could have put that money into social security. If they borrowed from the fund, put it back. Period.
And we also launched 2 wars that lasted 20 years each of them. How much did we spend on 2 wars we didn't see coming? So we somehow came up with the money when it was war. We should be able to come up with funds to fill the social security bucket.
Lol. You must now admit you’re uninformed and apologize to me.BS. He called Republicans out for wanting to though.
What social programs? Not ss and medicare.
If anyone will bankrupt SS it will be the Demwits with the help of some RINOs. Gotta fund Ukraine somehow, right?It wasn't discussed during the elections but does any one doubt SS is going to be put on the chopping block?
No way one usmb Republican will say they like and want to keep SS.
And if they want to at least tell us in 2019 so we can vote on it.
Typical. You guys hate socialism and social programs but you'll claim it was us when it happens. And "rinos"If anyone will bankrupt SS it will be the Demwits with the help of some RINOs. Gotta fund Ukraine somehow, right?
Liars. The Republican Party has never tried to defund Social Security. Stop lying. Bush clearly attempted to privatize not defund only 5% to stop the Government from having to print more money to keep it going. Stop lying! Just like your Biden lied about Republicans wanting to put blacks in chains when most Blacks in big cities are in welfare chains and can’t get out. So, to keep them in chains, they promise reparations which they will never get so Blacks will continue to vote for their taskmasters the Democrats. Wake up!The US Federal Government will never go insolvent. Only in your deluded fantasy world will it run out of money to meet its obligations. Rightwingers have been trying to defund Social Security since it was established in the 1930s, but they'll never manage to do it, at least not in our lifetime. You're probably on Social Security yourself, yet you're shitting on it. The Irony.
If the American Democratic Party is "communist", then all of Western Europe is likewise communist. All of those government policies that you consider "commie" which AOC, Bernie and a few other progressives support, are taken for granted and mainstream in Western Europe. Go figure.
Why are 401k’s a scam? Are you stupid or something? Oh, just a bleeding heart liberal who wants communism.What happens when Russia invades Ukraine and your stocks take a dump?
How about people invest in the stock market AND get social security?
401K's are a scam.
It doesn't matter how much money is typed into the computer keyboard at the FED and sent to Social Security recipients, because it will never be close, much less exceed our GDP. The danger is in having money and not having products and services to purchase with that money. We don't have that problem with Social Security, so all of this Republican talk about government insolvency is a bunch of bull hockey.Liars. The Republican Party has never tried to defund Social Security. Stop lying. Bush clearly attempted to privatize not defund only 5% to stop the Government from having to print more money to keep it going. Stop lying! Just like your Biden lied about Republicans wanting to put blacks in chains when most Blacks in big cities are in welfare chains and can’t get out. So, to keep them in chains, they promise reparations which they will never get so Blacks will continue to vote for their taskmasters the Democrats. Wake up!
1. You are wrong. The US borrows money from China and other countries. That money plus interest needs to be paid back. Your solution is to just print more money. That never works. Here read about what happens when you print too much money.You are simply wrong.
I'm actually correct, it's you who is "simply wrong" and brainwashed.
Debt means...
The so-called "national debt" is simply a ledger of how much money the US government has provided the private sector and the US economy in general, in the last 200+ years, that hasn't been collected in taxes and is now being saved and invested. The US federal government being the exclusive issuer of the USD will never go insolvent. It will always have enough dollars to pay out and meet its obligations because it has a monopoly on the creation of USD. Do you believe that our federal government (the exclusive creator and supplier of the dollar) is going to "run out" of dollars? If you do, you're laughably mistaken. That can't happen, any more than the scorekeeper in a football game can run out of points to give.
.... someone loaned you money...
I can get a USD loan, and owe someone that money, because I'm not the exclusive issuer of the dollar/USD, I'm just a little, misly user of the dollar. I have to get off my ass and get to work, in order to "earn" dollars. The US federal government doesn't need to "earn" dollars, because it creates dollars ex-nihilo (out of nothing), on a keyboard at THE FED. The FED is a chartered banking institution under the authority of the US Congress. It has permission from Uncle Sam, to "print money" or type it into a computer and deposit the amount in someone's account.
.....and you owe interest on that money, and need to pay that money back.
The US Federal government is the issuer of the USD, hence it only owes dollars to those who purchased US treasury bonds. If they are in the position to redeem those bonds, collect on their investment, the US federal government, will pay them what it has committed (obligated itself), to pay. However, your US federal government, can never "run-out" of money (go insolvent), because it is the exclusive CREATOR of the MAMMON (USD).
The US borrowed $32T and is paying $1T a year in interest....
No, it doesn't. You're conflating all of the money the US federal government has printed and typed into the computer in the last 200+ years, that hasn't been collected in taxes and is now in our hands (in your bank account or pocket), with treasury bonds. Yes indeed Uncle Sam promises you, that he will meet his obligation to pay you back with interest whenever you invest in US treasuries, but that "contract" or agreement isn't equal to you and me owing someone who lends us money. Our loans are actual loans because we don't create the money ex-nihilo, as the US federal government does. Uncle Sam has the power, and authority to create money from nothing.
The IRS brings in about $4T a year and the US government spends about $6T a year.
The actual, main function of the IRS is to help control inflation by taking money out of the economy, through taxation. All taxation assists in avoiding hyperinflation and forcing us (the people) to produce goods and services, to pay our taxes (property taxes), permits, licenses..etc, using the dollars that we earned. We can't pay our taxes and other government fees (permits..etc) in Mexican or Canadian currency, we must use USD. That increases the value of the dollar, makes us productive (pay your property taxes or live under a bridge, you need to generate an income), and takes money out of the economy to control inflation.
That is unsustainable. Interest on the Debt will crowd out "Mandatory Spending" Speaker McCarthy said that only 11% of the US Budget can be cut.
What you are describing are the limitations of a currency backed by gold. Our currency is a sovereign fiat currency, no longer hampered by how much gold we have. What determines the budgetary constraints of the US federal government is our GDP. If our production capacity is 24 trillion dollars, then our budget can be 15%, 25%, even 60% of that. Without any danger of run-away inflation. Hyperinflation occurs when the budget goes above our production capacity, hence there's too much money in the economy and not enough goods and services to meet consumer demand.
If the US federal government allocates funds to infrastructural works, it's practically impossible to cause inflation. When our government invests in the American people, building our nation's infrastructure (highways, bridges, transportation, energy, mining, healthcare, education, housing for the homeless..etc), it strengthens our economy, increases production (makes America more productive) and raises everyone's standard of living.
Because the US has a $20T economy doesn't mean that the government can spend any of that private money. In your communist world you can nationalize everything, in the real world that won't happen, its unconstitutional.
You are wrong. The US borrows money from China and other countries.1. You are wrong. The US borrows money from China and other countries. That money plus interest needs to be paid back. Your solution is to just print more money. That never works. Here read about what happens when you print too much money.
A loaf of bread in Berlin that cost around 160 Marks at the end of 1922 cost 200,000,000,000 Marks by late 1923.Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It doesn't matter how much money is typed into the computer keyboard at the FED and sent to Social Security recipients, because it will never be close, much less exceed our GDP. The danger is in having money and not having products and services to purchase with that money. We don't have that problem with Social Security, so all of this Republican talk about government insolvency is a bunch of bull hockey.
The Fed printed a few $trillion to get us out of the Covid shutdown. That created 11% inflation that we are now curing by raising interest rates to over 5%, which slows inflation to 2% over time. Your solution to print $32T or even $50T would cause inflation to go over 1000% if not more. Never happen. The Fed won't do it.You are wrong. The US borrows money from China and other countries.
The US doesn't borrow US dollars from China or any other country. It sells treasury bonds to China and other countries, but it doesn't borrow dollars.
That money plus interest needs to be paid back.
When someone "cashes in" their treasury bonds, the US federal government has obligated itself to pay the value of the bond. That doesn't imply that the US federal government needs China or anyone else to supply it with USD.
Your solution is to just print more money. That never works.
That always works, provided we have the production (goods and services) to support it. There is no danger of hyperinflation when the US federal government pays retirees their Social Security checks. We have sufficient GDP/Production/Goods and Services.
Here read about what happens when you print too much money.
The Weimar Republic (Germany post-WWI until the rise of the Nazi Party) and Zimbabwe both experienced hyperinflation, but their situations were completely different from ours. So why even mention them?
The Weimar Republic did have a sovereign currency, the Reichsmark. However, their hyperinflation was primarily a result of the crippling war reparations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles following WWI. These reparations were denominated in gold and foreign currencies, not the Reichsmark.
When Germany failed to meet its obligations, foreign nations occupied the Ruhr region, one of Germany's primary industrial areas. This severely disrupted the German economy, as the production capacity plummeted while the government was printing money to pay reparations and keep the economy afloat, leading to hyperinflation.
Why are you comparing the Weimar Republic and the USA? You're resorting to nonsensical arguments, to defend your indefensible assertions about our money system. Weimar and the US are two completely different countries, functioning under completely different circumstances.
Zimbabwe also suffered from a similar scenario. It had a sovereign currency (the Zimbabwean dollar), but the hyperinflation crisis was primarily due to a collapse in production. After a series of ill-conceived land reforms, agricultural output dropped drastically. The government responded by printing more money to meet its obligations, but this only exacerbated inflation as there were fewer goods and services available for a rapidly increasing money supply, causing prices to skyrocket.
Contrast this with us here in the United States. The USA has a sovereign, fiat currency (the US dollar) and also the unique privilege of owning the world's primary reserve currency. The US has a much larger, more diversified, and resilient economy than either the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe. We're not the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe, do you realize that? We're the United States, the primary, numero uno/#1 economy in the world. We even dwarf China, a country with a population, five times ours.
The production capacity of the US economy is....
...and highly diversified, and it's not solely reliant on a single sector (like agriculture in Zimbabwe). It's also worth noting that the US government's financial obligations (like Social Security and others), are denominated in its own currency, which it can create more of. This gives it more flexibility in managing its financial obligations ("debt") compared to a country whose debts are denominated in a foreign currency or gold. I place "debt" between quotes, because it's not really a debt in the same sense as our personal or household debt, as users of the currency. We are users of the USD, not the exclusive issuer of the currency, as the US Federal Government is.
The US federal government will never run out of USD/US DOLLARS, provided it continues to be the exclusive issuer of its currency.
The Fed printed a few $trillion to get us out of the Covid shutdown. That created 11% inflation that we are now curing by raising interest rates to over 5%, which slows inflation to 2% over time. Your solution to print $32T or even $50T would cause inflation to go over 1000% if not more. Never happen. The Fed won't do it.
The problem is that Congress won't stop borrowing.
You are drinking the liberal media kool-aid. If the world turns against the U.S. and gives China the currency status, we will look worse than the USSR with their collapse. You are living in a bubble and think nothing can go wrong. That we can just keep printing money. Our military is weak enough that China and Russia could declare war on us and win. We have very little conventional weapons and bullets because Biden has sent it all over to the Ukraine.
As far as you responding to my post, you didn't. Republicans aren't the ones just talking about insolvency anyways. Democrats do as well. However, my post was that Republicans wanted to do something to keep Social Security by privatizing a small portion of it instead of pushing retirement age forward to age 75 like the Democrats are doing. 5$ would not have hurt anyone receiving Social Security back in the early 2000's when Bush proposed this. But, Democrat opposed this because it would hurt their goal of communism destroying capitalism.
You write, well, I doubt you wrote this, but let's look at inflation since you (or someone) referenced it a lot. What is inflation? Think of baseball card collections. You have say 5 Babe Ruth rookie season cards all in the same condition. Each one worth $100,000. Then, all of a sudden, someone finds 10,000 of those cards in a vault. How much are those $100,000 cards now worth? Very little. simply put, inflation of the dollar depends on one thing, how many dollars are in circulation. Pumping money into the system devalues each dollar already in the system. Each dollar is now worth less. If the economy grows, you would expect the value of the dollar to decrease because ore dollars are in circulation. However, another way to put more dollars in circulation is simply just printing more dollar bills. As the debt increases, both funded and non-funded, this will occur. Whoever your Keynesian economic writer is hasn't a clue since he doesn't know what inflation is.Let's unpack the various assertions made in your argument one by one:
Finally, the main issue is not about whether the government can "afford" to maintain programs like Social Security, but rather, whether these programs would cause the economy to overheat and generate inflation. And in terms of the retirement age or the idea of privatization, we need to look beyond purely financial considerations and consider the broader socio-economic implications. The United States is one of the most productive countries in the world, with a very hard-working workforce, hence it's quite easy to keep our GDP at a level that allows us to maintain a social safety net without causing hyperinflation. If Western Europe can do it, so can we.
- The fear about China assuming global currency status: The dominance of the US dollar isn't solely due to military strength, but rather a complex interplay of factors including the size, resilience, and openness of the US economy, the depth and liquidity of its financial markets, and the rule of law that governs its financial system. While China's economy has grown tremendously, its financial markets are not as open or transparent as those of the US, and its currency is not freely convertible. These are significant barriers to the renminbi replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency in the near term.
- The claim that "printing money" will lead to disaster: This is a common misconception. The US government, as the issuer of its currency, can't "run out" of money in the same way a household or a business can. The critical issue is not the amount of money, but the productive resources in the economy. As long as those resources are not fully utilized, additional spending won't lead to inflation.
- The assertion about military weakness: While the strength of a nation's military is an important aspect of national security, it's not directly related to the topic of fiscal policy or Social Security. Furthermore, military budgets are a matter of political decision-making. The US currently has the largest defense budget in the world, and the distribution of those funds is a separate topic.
- The point about both Republicans and Democrats discussing insolvency: The insolvency narrative stems from a misunderstanding of how governments that issue their own sovereign currency operate. The US government can always meet its financial obligations as they come due, because it can always create its own currency. The concern should be whether fulfilling these obligations would cause an over-utilization of resources and therefore inflation, not whether the government can "afford" it.
- The proposal to privatize Social Security: The notion of privatizing Social Security, even partially, would expose retirees to market risks that they're ill-equipped to bear. On the other hand, the Social Security system, as a government program, can always be funded, since the government has no financial constraints in its own currency.
- The claim about Democrats pushing the retirement age to 75: Adjusting the retirement age doesn't address the root of the perceived problem. The real constraint is not financial, but about real resources - workers, infrastructure, technology. If the economy can support more retirees without causing inflation, then there's no economic reason why we can't allow people to retire at the same age or even earlier.
- The accusation of a push towards communism: Supporting a robust social safety net is not synonymous with advocating for communism. Many successful countries with mixed economies (e.g. Western Europe, Japan.etc.) maintain strong social programs. The key is balance, and ensuring that economic policies serve the needs of the public. If establishing a robust social safety net in the United States constitutes "communism" as you assert, then all of Western Europe today is communist. The policies that you right-wingers constantly identify as "communist" are taken for granted and mainstream in Western Europe. You shoot yourselves in the foot when you resort to this type of rhetoric.
Going back to your fearmongering about "communism", what I just described above, isn't communism. I say this as a communist. It's not communism, it's just common sense. Countries with plenty of capitalism, apply these policies because they know, that in order to successfully have a capitalist, market economy, you at least need a little bit of socialism. Capitalism without a bit of socialism, leads to gross inequality and socioeconomic collapse (deep depressions and social unrest, which almost always lead to the pitchforks).
You make very good arguments. I'm reminded about Reagan's saying "its not that democrats are stupid, but its that what they know just isn't so."You conveniently ignored every point I made in my last post. Anyways...
Firstly, it's misleading to link the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing measures during the COVID-19 crisis directly to a surge in inflation. Inflation is not simply a function of the money supply. It is a complex phenomenon affected by numerous factors including production capacity, demand for goods and services, wage levels, global commodity prices, and supply chain disruptions.
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global supply chains and created massive bottlenecks in many sectors of the economy, leading to a sudden drop in the supply of various goods and services. Concurrently, the Federal Government's relief checks increased demand. It was this imbalance between supply and demand, exacerbated by pandemic-related factors, that largely fueled inflation, rather than just an increase in money supply. This has nothing to do with the US federal government's ability to meet its obligations today, to those who collect Social Security, when we're no longer in the middle of a worldwide deadly pandemic.
Secondly, the assertion that the Federal Reserve's "solution" to inflation is to increase interest rates to over 5% oversimplifies a complex process. Higher interest rates do not automatically reduce inflation. They can slow down economic activity by making borrowing more expensive, but they can also hurt businesses and consumers, potentially causing a slowdown or even a recession. Fiscal policy (government spending and taxation) is a more direct and effective tool for controlling inflation, by managing aggregate demand.
Thirdly, the suggestion that printing more money would cause "inflation to go over 1000%" lacks a basis in economic reality. The government's capacity to spend is limited not by its ability to print money but by the economy's productive capacity (our GDP). It's not about indiscriminately printing money, it's about ensuring the economy is functioning at its optimal level. If there is slack in the economy, such as unemployed labor or underutilized resources, additional government spending can be absorbed without causing inflation.
Finally, the claim that "the problem is that Congress won't stop borrowing" fundamentally misunderstands how a sovereign currency issuer operates. For a country like the United States, government borrowing isn't the same as household or business borrowing. When the government "borrows", it is essentially accepting back its own currency and replacing it with bonds, which are just another form of government-issued financial assets.
The real constraints that the government faces are not financial, but real, such as the availability of labor, resources, and technology. As long as these real resources are available, the government can safely spend more without causing inflation. This refutes the claim that Congress must "stop borrowing", and emphasizes the need for fiscal policy aimed at maximizing the utilization of the country's resources. Investing in our national infrastructure, to facilitate and increase productivity and employment.
On the notion of taxation, borrowing, and printing money, the most important takeaway here is that for a country like the United States, which issues its own currency, these mechanisms operate differently than they would for a business or a household.You make very good arguments. I'm reminded about Reagan's saying "its not that democrats are stupid, but its that what they know just isn't so."
IMHO the disconnect in our arguments occurs in the para that starts "Thirdly,"
We disagree on the differences between taxing to raise revenue to balance the Budget, or borrowing money, or printing money.
You have not shown how the US GDP affects the Budget Deficit, they are NOT connected. The Budget Deficit is determined by the difference between Federal Revenue (IRS) and Spending, i.e the Federal Budget. The GDP is a function of the US economy, interest rates, are people buying goods and services, etc.
Getting back to the differences:
1. Increase taxes to balance the Budget. This takes money out of the system, but strengthens the US dollar.
2. Issue bonds to balance the Budget. This adds $1T or so to the Budget for interest on the Debt that MUST be paid.
3. Print money to balance the Budget. This is the worst option because it weakens the dollar and therefore increases inflation.
p.s. are you the ex-seminarian commie who posts "ghost box" stuff? I agree with cougarbear that you write very well, wrong, but well written.
Just imagine if the Fed's balance sheet was 10x what it is now, what would the dollar be worth compared to other currencies?
View attachment 803270Assets: Total Assets: Total Assets (Less Eliminations from Consolidation): Wednesday Level
View the total value of the assets of all Federal Reserve Banks as reported in the weekly balance sheet.fred.stlouisfed.org
You write, well, I doubt you wrote this, but let's look at inflation since you (or someone) referenced it a lot. What is inflation? Think of baseball card collections. You have say 5 Babe Ruth rookie season cards all in the same condition. Each one worth $100,000. Then, all of a sudden, someone finds 10,000 of those cards in a vault. How much are those $100,000 cards now worth? Very little. simply put, inflation of the dollar depends on one thing, how many dollars are in circulation. Pumping money into the system devalues each dollar already in the system. Each dollar is now worth less. If the economy grows, you would expect the value of the dollar to decrease because ore dollars are in circulation. However, another way to put more dollars in circulation is simply just printing more dollar bills. As the debt increases, both funded and non-funded, this will occur. Whoever your Keynesian economic writer is hasn't a clue since he doesn't know what inflation is.
Socialism does not work without tyranny. It's often misunderstood that Scandinavian countries are capitalist with a safety net. It's not socialism since there is no top down government attempting at every turn to steal away your property which includes land, housing, gold, cash, bank accounts and anything worth value you own. However, here in the U.S. while the cost of all goods has gone up significantly over the last 125 years, wages have not. Especially over the past 50 years. It used to be that the nuclear family could live on one income quite easily. Not anymore for most of America. What happened? Easy, more dollars in the economy with more people consuming without real business growth because of high taxation of all methods of taxation on businesses and individuals.
Why is America turning to communism? Because it is no longer a bad word to most of the youth today who have been brainwashed by the Universities who have their minions in high schools and below teaching the children of today. How did that happen? The communists of the 60's and 70's realized that even the Democrats back then were no communists and that they could not violently overthrow the Government at that time. So, they put away their bombs and went back to school to become the "man." The leaders of today. We see today that most children do not understand what goes on in communist countries. They are taught that the Government has their best interests and they should be their gods, shut up and obey or else! Equality has been replaced by the Democrat communists with "Equity." Instead of equal opportunity the communist Democrat Party wants everyone to be the same and have the same, but not opportunity. Steal from the rich, the bad people, and give to the unworthy lazy people. That includes the criminals, homeless, Blacks, Hispanics but not the Whites and Asians. For, the Whites and Asians are capitalists and your enemy. They want equality of opportunity and not equity and lowering standards to the middle "C" average on everything. To do this, more money has to be printed, making it more difficult for the elderly to start getting their Social Security as the average age of death has increased. Oh, and there is where the money is coming from and going. Social Security. Push out people from receiving their SS later and using that money to try and equity everything. The wealth gap between the New World Order of the rich and powerful and those of us who can't keep up with inflation continues to widen. In the long run, the people lose power and the few leaders, communists, have all the power. More confusion amongst the people in areas of gender and race mask this insidious communist Satanic plot to eventually do away with those who think they are being protected, gays, lesbians, trans, blacks, Jews (including Soros who thinks he's part of it).... We've seen this all play out throughout history to the present in China, Russia and so on. You Democrats didn't learn a thing with Stalin, Mao, Hitler and a host of many others. Fools!
