The problem is the GOP started 2 wars and gave tax cuts to the wealthy, a subsidy for the rich, without a way to pay for them..
Surely you aren't that stupid.
The trillions that were "set aside" for Social Security payments have been spent on other things.
That means the US government is going to have to find those trillions somewhere else. The trillion+ annual deficits that are currently being rung up by our government don't even include the trillions that have been looted from Social Security.
It's an accounting fraud of monumental proportions.
remind me again...who is the largest creditor in the world?
As we both know, Social Security.
And as we both know, they will default/cheat Social Security before they default/cheat China.
If you didn't get a tax break, then you don't pay taxes!
Why do I even bother talking to you? You don't even know the facts. You are a waste of time.
Worse yet, they will raise taxes to pay for it rather than cutting programs not required by cons ution.
So? China has a $1 trillion dollar investment in the U.S.....which has never defaulted on a interest payment...however, the Social Security trust fund gets the bulk of the interest paid on the debt.....that's ac ulated wealth and when wealth ac ulates, it does not circulate....that stunts economic growth...given that money grows as it circulates, the estimated 6 trillion dollars in Social Security funds in the economy has led to double digit trillions of dollars of wealth in the U.S....
The Federal tax system is structured to redistribute wealth from the very wealthy to the very poor....by very wealthy I mean...very, very, wealthy to the very indigent, the wingnuts love to remind us of that, but the bulk of taxes isn't paid by the richers or corporations... it's paid by middle-class families...
'promote the general welfare' is a pretty broad stroke by the founding fathers..of course, I'm not sure where proactive war fits into the Cons ution...remind me again?
I suggest you do a little research as to what that phase meant in the 18th century. Don't apply it to modern day bas ization of our word definitions.
Now THATS funny!
Look at how great our economy is doing now that the 6 TRILLION has been pissed off...
So where's that 6 trillion coming from when it's time to pay it back?
We are one of the most wealthiest nations in the world...so, we are doing quite well.....
Now THATS funny!
Look at how great our economy is doing now that the 6 TRILLION has been pissed off...
So where's that 6 trillion coming from when it's time to pay it back?
...who says we have to pay off the debt? If we just don't increase the debt beyond planned expenditures the interest on the debt will decrease as a percentage of GDP....even if we just slow down spending this could happen, but what you don't do is cut off spending during period of stagnant growth...
We aren't growing the economy with the new spending, we are growing government.
Pardon me if I don't share your optimism. I know this was the "summer of growth" according to Biden but it certainly doesn't feel that way.
BTW, what do you do for a living? (in general non-specific terms)
Myth: moveon.org knows what they're talking about.
Reality: If it's not going broke then there wouldn't be a need for moveon to acknowledge a future where SS can't meet 100% of it's scheduled benefits.
Myth: moveon.org knows what they're talking about.Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Reality: Maybe all of this would mean something if retirees composed the same percentage of the population in the 1930's that they will in the 2030's. But that's not the case.
Myth: moveon.org knows what they're talking about.Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Reality: The rich are paying their "fair share". SS benefits are defined by a formula which is based on the amount of money you put into it. Capping the amount of money the rich put into it also caps the amount they'll be able to take out of it. The reason this whole thing isn't working is because it's a ponzi scheme. Sure, you can sustain a ponzi scheme without cutting the payouts if you just make the suckers putting money in pay more. But is that really something we should be getting excited about?
Myth: moveon.org knows what they're talking about.Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Reality: So basically SS has a bunch of pieces of paper from the goverment acknowledging that they borrowed money from SS and are promising to pay it back. And that's not an IOU, how?
Myth: moveon.org knows what they're talking about.Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.
Reality: Remember all those Treasury bonds we just got through talking about? What happens when SS starts cashing those in? Does the Treasury have trillions of dollars just lying around waiting to be used to pay back SS? Or is the Treasury going to have to go borrow the money in order to pay back SS, thus increasing the defecit?
Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
c g does bring up the point about percentages but then does this beg the question? is social security an actuarial issue? if so, then numbers would dictate that there are a greater amount of people over a certain age than ever before and perhaps the retirement age would have to go up. but what is the quality of life in this bracket? what is the percentage that can work? also, if in fact the lower income brackets do not represent the longest living of this group does this also suggest they are the poorest, health-wise, as well?
i can, for one, tell you there are a lot of older patients i see in the hospitals i work at who are battling multiple issues and they have not even hit their 70's yet.
there really need to be some better numbers here in order to elaborate on this argument. again, assuming the issue is an actuarial as opposed to ethical matter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
