quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

...didn't the President recently place them on the table for negotiating reforms/cuts ?
IF the President can do thus with the Democratic sacred cows....can Republican legislaturs do less where their sill pledge is concerned ?

quote:

Thing is, the President doesn't appear to have the full backing and support of the Democrats on this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


You do realize that the Social Security trust is solvent for the next 20 years currently, and by removing the cap on contributions, solvent forever?

That may be true ... theoretically.

In reality, all the "trust fund" money has been loaned to the Federal Government for other expenses ... and spent.

The SS "trust fund" has pretty much nothing but IOUs and the monthly income which is redistributed each month for current payments.

In other words, your "solvent" SS is a fiction.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Regardless, the actual "trust fund" does not exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Social security is fiscally sound. It's a well-designed program.

For years, the surplus has been loaned to a solid, credit-worthy borrower....the U.S. Treasury.

So why can't we just call in the loans? Trouble is, we, the taxpayers, are ultimately the ones who borrowed it. Consequently, we're the ones who owe this money....to ourselves.

We can complain about irresponsible and short-sighted politicians. But we'd have to include the short-sighted irresponsibility of the voters who followed their short-term zeal in tax cutting and borrowing vs. building long term financial viability.

Raising the age two years seems a reasonable approach. Those who can't work are still eligible for disability. Calling it class warfare against the poor seems pretty extreme.

But we could also increase the social security payroll tax, and eliminate the cap. That would help some. I don't know as it would resolve the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And if we weren't already borrowed to the hilt on everything under the sun, we would be shining like the Aztec sungod, no biggie, we borrowed from our government sponsored 401(k) and we have to pay it back at interest, (to ourselves) but we also borrowed........and we also borrowed.......and we also borrowed........

so, who what when where why and how, are we gonna pay for this and who gets paid first?  the check is 33-35% short of the bills, kids.......how you wanna do it?  lose cable sure, and the internet, and eating out (especially, since we are doing alot of that) and .......shit, still short...........now what?   

Posts 46 and 47 are both very accurate.  There never should have been a problem with social security.  It should have been sacrosanct. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

Ah yes, true American individualism. If I personally don't need or want it, nobody else should have it.

No one has said that nobody should have it.  [8|]

I had this discussion with my father some 33 years ago when I got my first paycheck and a good chunk of it went to FICA.  When I say I have never believed that Social Security would be around by the time I retire, I meant it.  My father was wise enough to know back then the financial problems this country is having right now. 

However, he also explained to me that the reality is that a good many people do not have the self-discipline and sufficient means to plan for their own retirement.  Because of that, Social Security is needed.

The pity of it is, the program has been poorly managed from the start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Regardless, the actual "trust fund" does not exist.

Yes, it does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

Ah yes, true American individualism. If I personally don't need or want it, nobody else should have it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is nothing further from the truth.  Not the only raid, but one of them:
The news media had given extensive coverage to the Social Security debate in the 2000 election campaign, and to President Bush's early promises to not raid the trust fund. However, Bush's failure to honor his promises, with regard to Social Security, just never seemed to get much news coverage, leaving most Americans to believe that the raiding of the trust fund ended after George W. Bush took office. On the contrary, Bush raided and spent a total of $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus during his eight years as president. In his last year, he spent $192.2 billion, which averages out to more than $526 million per day.

During a speech on April 5, 2005 in Parkersburg, West Virginia, Bush openly admitted to the fact that all of the Social Security surplus revenue had been spent. He said, "There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs." Bush's words in this speech bore little resemblance to what he had said about Social Security during the 2000 campaign. But his motives were different in 2005. He was trying to sell his privatization plan, and he thought that by spilling the truth he might further his effort to privatize Social Security.

There would be no Social Security funding problem for at least the next 25 years, if the government had not raided the trust fund. If the trust fund held the $2.5 trillion of surplus Social Security revenue, in the form of real marketable bonds, as it should, it could continue to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037. So the obvious solution is for the government to make arrangements to repay the $2.5 trillion it owes to the trust fund.

Remember stimulus provisions, e.g.,  the one-time $250 check for Social Security recipients, or the Making Work Pay credits in 2009 and 2010, which refunded up to $400 (single) and $800 (married couples) of employees’ payroll taxes?

Came from Social Security.

The General Fund is being raided even now to pay for Social Security checks.

Remember the DeMint-Crapo amendment?  Anyone?  Bueller?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So Boenhner and the tea party aren't holding the Full Faith and Credt of the nation hostage to their own ideological demands ?
How do you figure that ? They have stated that they are more than willing to raise the debt limit.....provided a deal is reached on expenditures ie: cuts...a deal that is ideologically pure ie : no revenue increases.
If that is not holding it hostage,what is it ?
Where is the slant ?

What is the Obama plan for the budget?  Seen anything other than sound bites?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Social security is fiscally sound. It's a well-designed program.

For years, the surplus has been loaned to a solid, credit-worthy borrower....the U.S. Treasury.

So why can't we just call in the loans? Trouble is, we, the taxpayers, are ultimately the ones who borrowed it. Consequently, we're the ones who owe this money....to ourselves.

We can complain about irresponsible and short-sighted politicians. But we'd have to include the short-sighted irresponsibility of the voters who followed their short-term zeal in tax cutting and borrowing vs. building long term financial viability.

Raising the age two years seems a reasonable approach. Those who can't work are still eligible for disability. Calling it class warfare against the poor seems pretty extreme.

But we could also increase the social security payroll tax, and eliminate the cap. That would help some. I don't know as it would resolve the matter.

We can complain about irresponsible and short-sighted politicians. But we'd have to include the short-sighted irresponsibility of the voters who followed their short-term zeal in creating a welfare state instead building long term financial viability and creating jobs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Social security is fiscally sound. It's a well-designed program.

For years, the surplus has been loaned to a solid, credit-worthy borrower....the U.S. Treasury.

So why can't we just call in the loans? Trouble is, we, the taxpayers, are ultimately the ones who borrowed it. Consequently, we're the ones who owe this money....to ourselves.

We can complain about irresponsible and short-sighted politicians. But we'd have to include the short-sighted irresponsibility of the voters who followed their short-term zeal in tax cutting and borrowing vs. building long term financial viability.

Raising the age two years seems a reasonable approach. Those who can't work are still eligible for disability. Calling it class warfare against the poor seems pretty extreme.

But we could also increase the social security payroll tax, and eliminate the cap. That would help some. I don't know as it would resolve the matter.

We can complain about irresponsible and short-sighted politicians. But we'd have to include the short-sighted irresponsibility of the voters who followed their short-term zeal in creating a welfare state instead building long term financial viability and creating jobs.

At the time it was created, the taxes were there.

When taxes were cut, Washington didn't have the balls to cut spending to fund the cuts. And voters cheered it on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

What is the Obama plan for the budget?  Seen anything other than sound bites?

Legislation begins in the Congress. As soon as John Boehner does his job and submits legislation for the President's signature or veto, you'll see a budget.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Thing is, the President doesn't appear to have the full backing and support of the Democrats on this:

Correct, he hasn't. And polls show a majority of Republicans prefer a plan including tax increases.

When we're done with the partisan prop-ups, maybe we can get back to the topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

What is the Obama plan for the budget?  Seen anything other than sound bites?

Legislation begins in the Congress. As soon as John Boehner does his job and submits legislation for the President's signature or veto, you'll see a budget.

Well, my reading of the Budget Act of 1974 seems to be that the President actually submits the budget plan, and the Congress basically authorizes the spending of it.

In other words ... the President is responsible for having a plan, and submitting it to Congress.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is nothing further from the truth.  Not the only raid, but one of them:
The news media had given extensive coverage to the Social Security debate in the 2000 election campaign, and to President Bush's early promises to not raid the trust fund. However, Bush's failure to honor his promises, with regard to Social Security, just never seemed to get much news coverage, leaving most Americans to believe that the raiding of the trust fund ended after George W. Bush took office. On the contrary, Bush raided and spent a total of $1.37 trillion of So
cial Security surplus during his eight years as president. In his last year, he spent $192.2 billion, which averages out to more than $526 million per day.

During a speech on April 5, 2005 in Parkersburg, West Virginia, Bush openly admitted to the fact that all of the Social Security surplus revenue had been spent. He said, "There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs." Bush's words in this speech bore little resemblance to what he had said about Social Security during the 2000 campaign. But his motives were different in 2005. He was trying to sell his privatization plan, and he thought that by spilling the truth he might further his effort to privatize Social Security.

There would be no Social Security funding problem for at least the next 25 years, if the government had not raided the trust fund. If the trust fund held the $2.5 trillion of surplus Social Security revenue, in the form of real marketable bonds, as it should, it could continue to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037. So the obvious solution is for the government to make arrangements to repay the $2.5 trillion it owes to the trust fund.

Remember stimulus provisions, e.g.,  the one-time $250 check for Social Security recipients, or the Making Work Pay credits in 2009 and 2010, which refunded up to $400 (single) and $800 (married couples) of employees’ payroll taxes?

Came from Social Security.

The General Fund is being raided even now to pay for Social Security checks.

Remember the DeMint-Crapo amendment?  Anyone?  Bueller?

love...love to spend federal money as much or more than the democratsThe problem with your characterization is that either the money is there, or any so-called fund 'trust' or not would still rely upon more treasury debt.

The fact is that repubs , they just spend it on their (much different) constituency.