HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Social Security is ...

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:15 AM

"Social Security is not currently a driver of the deficit. That's an economic fact."

White House said Social Security should be off the table in 'cliff' talks

It wasn't that long ago that the White House was making the case against including Social Security cuts in "fiscal cliff" talks. Why? Because, as Jay Carney explained in the Nov. 26 briefing, "Social Security is not currently a driver of the deficit. That's an economic fact."



Transcript:

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/18/1171584/-White-House-said-Social-Security-should-be-off-the-table-in-cliff-talks

No friggin deal!





14 replies, 1071 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:25 AM

1. True that. The drivers of the deficit are the Bush recession and the invasions and occupations

 

of Iraq and Afghanistan. Third is the bloated military budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:26 AM

2. So why is it on the table??

for discussion??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:28 AM

4. Because it's the plan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html

Obama Pledges Entitlement Reform
President-Elect Says He'll Reshape Social Security, Medicare Programs

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

That discussion will begin next month, Obama said, when he convenes a "fiscal responsibility summit" before delivering his first budget to Congress. He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.

"What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further," he said. "We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else's."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:34 AM

6. Because it's still spending, so it makes the deficit go down to cut it

I mean, it's "not a driver of deficit" in the sense that it's self-funded, but if you spent less on Social Security benefits you would decrease the deficit.

I'd love to revisit how the CPI is calculated, but this idea is pretty stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:48 AM

8. Here:

It is also worth noting that under the law, Social Security cannot contribute to the deficit. It was set up by Congress as a stand alone program that can only spend money from its designated revenue stream. All official budget documents show the "on-budget" deficit which excludes revenue and spending from Social Security.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/boehner-wants-cuts-to-social-security-and-medicare-not-qchangesq

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:53 AM

9. Yep. That's what I said

It's self funded, but cutting it reduces the amount the govt borrows.

Blame Clinton for claiming a surplus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:41 AM

13. You keep saying that and people keep trying to tell you that you do not make

the people you borrowed from pay for the bad debts YOU ran up with the money they lent you. It makes no sense.

THEY borrowed from US. They borrowed for things they could not afford. We the people are one of their creditors. We did not go and gamble away our money, THEY did.

Now they have to sacrifice, they have to stop spending money on what caused them to get into debt in the first place. No more tax cuts for the wealthy and no more wars we do not need.

Should they try to make China pay down the US Debt. China, like the American people, are also their creditors. What should they force China to cut? That of course would be a ridiculous suggestion, just as it is a ridiculous suggestion to ask any of their Creditors to help them pay down debts they ran up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:57 AM

14. You keep saying that like I'm talking about the morality of it

Obviously I know that we shouldn't do that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:28 AM

3. If we RAISED benefits and raised the cap, SS could substantially contribute to the economy.

It's another issue where we are being convinced to vote against our own interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:31 AM

5. Smart post. But, THEY don't want this because it would undermine the deception

 

pulled on the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:57 AM

10. yes indeed--we need to rise up and speak--they really pay attention when we do!

They just assume we'll all buy their crap like they do in Indiana. Guess what, they are a gerrymandered minority.They are scared of the 98%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:45 AM

7. It messes up the longer term projections for trust fund solvency though.

 

Even though the trust fund is an accounting gimmick, the perceived solvency gives a longevity to the SS fund and to SS itself. If it were seen as insolvent that is when you can truly start changing things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:27 AM

11. The problem is that Social Security is the biggest holder of t-bills

The government started borrowing against Social Security in the 80's, or somewhere around that time period, and they will have to start paying what they borrowed back. So they will have to borrow from somewhere else to start paying it back. So the only way it ties into the debt is because Social Security wants to get their investment back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:56 PM

12. If your going to fail to stiff one of your creditors (the USA has many),

I would suggest we stiff the banksters, the MIC, China and Saudi Arabia, before we take food off the table of an 85 year old American who has paid for their retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread