http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/108747/next-in-line-for-a-bailout-social-security?mod-fidelity-readytoretire
Don't look now but a the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, social security is taking in less money than it is paying out. Instead of social security helping to finance the rest of the government that it used to do in the past, (in other words they stole from it at will), it now needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing. The tax payer bail out of social securty has begun!!!
BTW: The credit crisis was a walk in the part compared to this entitlement bohemouth. Even though I knew this was coming, as did everyone else, I had no idea it would start this soon.
Originally posted by whodeyBS as usual. In fact, Social Security has $2.3 trillion in assets. It's true these are Treasury IOUs, but that just means the rest of the government owes SS; paying some small amount of that back is hardly a "bailout".
http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/108747/next-in-line-for-a-bailout-social-security?mod-fidelity-readytoretire
Don't look now but a the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, social security is taking in less money than it is paying out. Instead of social security helping to finance the rest of the governmen ...[text shortened]... en though I knew this was coming, as did everyone else, I had no idea it would start this soon.
"Stole" is another ridiculous term to use, but such idiocy is consistent on your part. Borrowing from SS revenues to fund other government programs is "stealing"; paying back the borrowed funds is a "bailout". 🙄🙄
I propose we change the accounting rules.
From now on, payroll taxes will be considered the same as any other revenue flowing into the government. And Social Security payments will be considered the same as any other form of government spending flowing out. This would eliminate the trust fund and you would no longer have to worry about it.
Does anyone ever talk about the Defense Dept going insolvent? Does anyone worry that the taxpayers will have to bail out the military? We spend about the same amount every year on defense as we do on social security. And yet no one ever worries that we'll have to suddenly cancel the war in Afghanistan because we've run out of money. Okay, I know a lot of people would love it if this DID happen, but it won't.
The reason is that no one ever set up a special Defense Trust Fund to be funded by a special Defense Tax. That was a smart thing. But someone did set up a special Social Security Trust Fund funded by a special Social Security Tax - and the only purpose this seems to serve is to make cause people to worry needlessly.
Originally posted by badmoonThis has NOTHING to do with what I want, rather, it has everything to do with accepting consequences.
So whodey you just want to stop it now? Send the old folks out to the street?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/02/03/US.moodys.credit.ft/index.html
Here is an article about Moody warning of the US credit rating falling.
"Unless further measures are taken to reduce the budget deficit further or the economy rebounds more vigoursly than expected, the federal financial picture as presented for the next decade will at some point put pressure on the triple A government bond rating," the rating agency added in an issuer note.
The article goes on the say, "Crucially, projections of the everall debt-to-GDP ratio for the US are seen rising from 53% in 2009 to 73% in 2015 and 77% by 2020. Moody, however, says this underestimates the overall US debt level since both state and local governments are in the mix leaving the ratio to be well over 100% by 2020.
So what are the consequences of a lowering of the bond rating for the good old US of A I wonder? What do you think boys?
Originally posted by MelanerpesON the contrary, I propose that each entitlement program be put into a fund like Social Security. Then attention will be raised when each one becomes insolvent so that they can be targeted individually.
I propose we change the accounting rules.
From now on, payroll taxes will be considered the same as any other revenue flowing into the government. And Social Security payments will be considered the same as any other form of government spending flowing out. This would eliminate the trust fund and you would no longer have to worry about it.
Does anyo y Tax - and the only purpose this seems to serve is to make cause people to worry needlessly.
Of course, the reason social security was put in a fund to begin with was to give the impression that it was insurance in order to sell the concept to the American people.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll tell you what, why not pay me $100,000 in gold and I will give you a $200,000 IOU. Sound good to you? After all, that is a $100,000 profit!!!
BS as usual. In fact, Social Security has $2.3 trillion in assets. It's true these are Treasury IOUs, but that just means the rest of the government owes SS; paying some small amount of that back is hardly a "bailout".
"Stole" is another ridiculous term to use, but such idiocy is consistent on your part. Borrowing from SS revenues to fund ...[text shortened]... government programs is "stealing"; paying back the borrowed funds is a "bailout". 🙄🙄
Originally posted by whodeyDo you know what the word "insolvent" means? If you did, you wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that SS is "insolvent".
ON the contrary, I propose that each entitlement program be put into a fund like Social Security. Then attention will be raised when each one becomes insolvent so that they can be targeted individually.
Of course, the reason social security was put in a fund to begin with was to give the impression that it was insurance in order to sell the concept to the American people.
Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough not technically accurate, I use the term when money flowing out exceeds money going in. By all means, call it what you like.
Do you know what the word "insolvent" means? If you did, you wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that SS is "insolvent".
Originally posted by whodeyYou are aware that transactions where a tangible asset is exchanged for an "IOU" (i.e. note, etc.) are the lifeblood of the economy? It's hard to see how a modern economy could function without lending which you seem to be implying is some sort of scam.
I'll tell you what, why not pay me $100,000 in gold and I will give you a $200,000 IOU. Sound good to you? After all, that is a $100,000 profit!!!
As an aside, are you truly this ignorant or just trying to be funny?
Originally posted by whodeyHumpty Dumpty does the same type of thing as you do in Alice in Wonderland. I prefer to use words according to their standard meaning.
Although not technically accurate, I use the term when money flowing out exceeds money going in. By all means, call it what you like.
Originally posted by whodeyBy Whodeyian rules already spelled out, you by borrowing the money from me would be "stealing" it. Me, by insisting on repayment at some point, would be asking for a "bailout".
I'll tell you what, why not pay me $100,000 in gold and I will give you a $200,000 IOU. Sound good to you? After all, that is a $100,000 profit!!!
Originally posted by no1marauderMy warning is of an possible upcoming lowering of the US bond rating among other things. Either you disagree with my concern or you have no concern regarding this. Debt is OK so long as you don't let it get out of hand.
You are aware that transactions where a tangible asset is exchanged for an "IOU" (i.e. note, etc.) are the lifeblood of the economy? It's hard to see how a modern economy could function without lending which you seem to be implying is some sort of scam.
As an aside, are you truly this ignorant or just trying to be funny?
Originally posted by no1marauderOnly because I would have no means to pay you back. I suppose you could lock me up courtesy of the American taxpayer but by the time you catch up with me your $100,000 will have been spent. 😛
By Whodeyian rules already spelled out, you by borrowing the money from me would be "stealing" it. Me, by insisting on repayment at some point, would be asking for a "bailout".
Originally posted by no1marauderWe will then come up with another word indicating that a fund is losing money rather than making money. How about the term, "Obamarama"?
Humpty Dumpty does the same type of thing as you do in Alice in Wonderland. I prefer to use words according to their standard meaning.