Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No...even if we do nothing by then, every promised penny will be paid out of SS for at least another fifty years. Doesn't sound much like bankruptcy except to the disinformation media and those who believe it...
We're the ones who discover all of it. Often in our ivory towers where we are out of touch with mainstream America. It's you guys who spout all the poppycock-truth...Saddam has WMD
In 2003 with UN inspectors on the ground? What do you think the largest global demonstrations in history were trying to say? Yes, we're with you, George? Probably not. Conservatives made up these claims by cooking the books. Liberals questioned the claims. This was no case of 'everybody thought' anything, as much as conservatives, in their ultimate humiliation, might wish for that to have been the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
That happens to be true.
No, not under any set of real world assumptions, it isn't, as has been shown over and over in study after study and analysis after analysis that some out of pure partisan myopia refuse to recognize. Tax cuts mean receipts that are lower than what they otherwise would have been. End of story, with one minor footnote re the small and delayed effects of the JFK tax cuts in the early 1960's.
No...even if we do nothing by then, every promised penny will be paid out of SS for at least another fifty years. Doesn't sound much like bankruptcy except to the disinformation media and those who believe it...
Please tell me where you are getting your "fifty years" from? I'd surely like to be able to breath better then just hearing it from a message board.
Considering that SS has $0 in the pot, I'd say its currently bankrupt. You cant pay bills on IOU's..
In 2003 with UN inspectors on the ground? What do you think the largest global demonstrations in history were trying to say? Yes, we're with you, George? Probably not. Conservatives made up these claims by cooking the books. Liberals questioned the claims. This was no case of 'everybody thought' anything, as much as conservatives, in their ultimate humiliation, might wish for that to have been the case.
Nobody cooked the books. The Democrats had access to the same info. They either didn't bother to read it or did read it and came to the same conclusion the Republicans did.
Quote:
No, not under any set of real world assumptions, it isn't, as has been shown over and over in study after study and analysis after analysis that some out of pure partisan myopia refuse to recognize. Tax cuts mean receipts that are lower than what they otherwise would have been. End of story, with one minor footnote re the small and delayed effects of the JFK tax cuts in the early 1960's
Government revenue increased after the Kennedy tax cut, after the Reagan tax cuts and now, after the Bush tax cuts.
Actual truth is commonplace on our side. We're the ones who discover all of it. Often in our ivory towers where we are out of touch with mainstream America. It's you guys who spout all the poppycock-truth...Saddam has WMD...Social Security is going bankrupt...humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time...tax cuts increase government revenue...the list goes on and on...
Your post would be good for a laugh if it wasn't for the arrogance that accompanies them.
BTW, your lefty buddies started the whole Saddam has WMD's, maybe you should check your facts from time to time for accuracy, although accuracy may not be something you are interested in.
Slightly off-topic... his show was short-lived because the stations aired it at 2 or 3 in the morning.
It originally aired in a 11:30 spot after the nightly news and was moved due to poor ratings (I know, I used to watch/tape it).
It essentially was his radio show in (I think) a half an hour, plus he would add in bits like showing Cher give a speech and having a little window in the corner with Rush's head inside, making fun of her as he talked... and of course clips like the Chelsea thing.
Of course this was all before there was a Fox News channel... He very well could have had a similar radio & TV gig going like Oreilly and Hannity have now otherwise.
Some of it also could have been that in the early 90's, Rush was HUGE and had started a whole new media (which I do think proves him brilliant, at least in media savvy/innovation). By the time his TV show hit the air, things had started to cool a bit.
Well, according to his most recent financial disclosure forms, President Bush has a very significant portion of his not inconsiderable private wealth invested in those same IOU's. Apparently he knows something about them that he's not telling you.
Balances in the Social Security Trust Fund, representing the cumulative excess of payroll taxes received over SS benefits paid out, are invested (per both law and fiduciary responsibility) in US Treasury securities -- the safest, most secure investment vehicle in the history of the world. Not one penny of principal or interest has ever been defaulted on any such security. Those securities are laddered. Some of them mature every month, and when they do, Treasury makes the scheduled payment to the SS Adminstration as trustee for the SSTF. At the present time, SSA is in a surplus position. It collects every month more cash from payroll taxes than it needs to make scheduled benefit payments. Hence, it has no need for even more cash as the result of these SSTF securities maturing. It therefore reinvests those funds in new US Treasury securities. This allows the funds to continue to earn a competitive, market-based rate of interest until they are needed. That need will begin to arise a little more than a decade or so from now. At that time, SSA will not reinvest all of the funds received as SSTF securities mature and will use a part of them instead to make scheduled benefit payments. The value of the SSTF will continue to rise for another decade or so however, as the amounts needed to make benefit payments will be less than the amount of interest being earned. Somewhere in the vicinity of 2030, the SSTF will reach a peak value of a little more than $5.5 trillion. From that point, securities worth more than the interest earned will be maturing and the proceeds will again be used to make benefit payments. This process of drawing down the SSTF balances will continue at least until sometime in the 2060's or so.
People, including President Bush, who espouse the theory that Social Security is about to go bankrupt and that today's younger workers will never see a dime of their promised benefits are guilty of one of two things...
1. They don't know any better.
2. They are lying.
The simple facts are that even if we do nothing at all, no person born in 1980 or earlier has any need to fret over not receiving every penny of Social Security benefits that he or she can possibly qualify for. There are some problems with respect to funding 100% of the projected benefits of those born after 1980, but these are minor problems, and with 55-60 years at the least to work on them, there is no need to panic over any of those either.
Yellow cake. Aliuminum tubes. The Feith Memo. Everything that ever came out of the Bat Cave. Curveball. Mobile labs. 45 minutes. Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven, and the Bushies were spreading a whole lot of love around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
The Democrats had access to the same info.
No they didn't, and they still don't. You have to misunderstand the nature of your government to make such a claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Government revenue increased after the Kennedy tax cut, after the Reagan tax cuts and now, after the Bush tax cuts.
Government revenue increases if you do nothing at all. The dynamic duo of inflation and population growth, you know. The claim is that tax cuts somehow increase government revenues over and above what they would have been in the absence of the tax cuts. This is a claim that can be, and has been, analyzed and tested. There is no basis to it. There is in the case of JFK's cuts a slight and delayed increase in revenues not resulting from other causes. Supply-siders claim to be able to reproduce this effect at will. They have failed in every attempt to do so. No such thing happened with Reagan. No such thing happened with Bush. In each case, tax cuts caused revenue to fall below what it would have been without the tax cuts.
Please tell me where you are getting your "fifty years" from? I'd surely like to be able to breath better then just hearing it from a message board.
Considering that SS has $0 in the pot, I'd say its currently bankrupt. You cant pay bills on IOU's..
If your going to neg me, be man enough to leave your name because obviously you lacked the courage to do so and lack reading ability to read the forum in full.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
