Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SIMPSON: ... There is not enough in the system by the month ... to pay out what comes in. In other words there is more going out than coming in. That happened 3 or 4 weeks ago.

LAWSON: ... Social Security is separate, though, from the general budget, right? It's totally in the green.

SIMPSON: But it wasn't. Just four weeks ago, there wasn't as much coming in as going out.

LAWSON: Except you're not calculating the interest paid on the bonds, because, if you do include that, it's still in the green this year.


SIMPSON: Well you can go through all the sophistry of babbling that you want to.

LAWSON: It's not sophistry. It's just what the SSA says. So I'm just going on the numbers.

LAWSON: ... (W)hat about the $180 billion in surplus that (Social Security) brings in every year?


SIMPSON: There is no surplus in there. It's a bunch of IOUs.

LAWSON: That's what I wanted to actually get at.

SIMPSON: Listen. Listen. It's 2.5 trillion bucks in IOUs which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been setup.

LAWSON: Two wars, tax cuts for the wealthy.

SIMPSON: Whatever, whatever. You pick your crap and I'll pick the real stuff. It has to do with the highway system, it was to run America. And those are IOUs in there. And now there is not enough coming in every month ...

kalm wrote:Is social security really becoming insolvent? This article touches on a really interesting interview with retired senator Alan Simpson (R) who's co-chair of Obama's debt reduction commission. He's not exactly making a very good case that it is.

You can skip past the Huffington Post writer's commentary by clicking on the link to the interview at the bottom.

SIMPSON: ... There is not enough in the system by the month ... to pay out what comes in. In other words there is more going out than coming in. That happened 3 or 4 weeks ago.

LAWSON: ... Social Security is separate, though, from the general budget, right? It's totally in the green.

SIMPSON: But it wasn't. Just four weeks ago, there wasn't as much coming in as going out.

LAWSON: Except you're not calculating the interest paid on the bonds, because, if you do include that, it's still in the green this year.


SIMPSON: Well you can go through all the sophistry of babbling that you want to.

LAWSON: It's not sophistry. It's just what the SSA says. So I'm just going on the numbers.

LAWSON: ... (W)hat about the $180 billion in surplus that (Social Security) brings in every year?


SIMPSON: There is no surplus in there. It's a bunch of IOUs.

LAWSON: That's what I wanted to actually get at.

SIMPSON: Listen. Listen. It's 2.5 trillion bucks in IOUs which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been setup.

LAWSON: Two wars, tax cuts for the wealthy.

SIMPSON: Whatever, whatever. You pick your crap and I'll pick the real stuff. It has to do with the highway system, it was to run America. And those are IOUs in there. And now there is not enough coming in every month ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/ ... 17841.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:

kalm wrote:Is social security really becoming insolvent? This article touches on a really interesting interview with retired senator Alan Simpson (R) who's co-chair of Obama's debt reduction commission. He's not exactly making a very good case that it is.

You can skip past the Huffington Post writer's commentary by clicking on the link to the interview at the bottom.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/ ... 17841.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kalm,

The interviewer was aiming at taxes and the general budget, not the solvency of social security. The issues are related only because dems and repubs raided social security in a bipartisan fashion.

It is not a question of whether social security is insolvent. It obviously is insolvent.

Don't you keep books for your "business?"

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
Kalm,

The interviewer was aiming at taxes and the general budget, not the solvency of social security. The issues are related only because dems and repubs raided social security in a bipartisan fashion.

It is not a question of whether social security is insolvent. It obviously is insolvent.

Don't you keep books for your "business?"

Yes, and I have yet to raid profitable parts of my business to fund a war or pay myself more.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes, and I have yet to raid profitable parts of my business to fund a war or pay myself more.

It does not matter at this point where or on what it was spent or who did it. It was spent . It's gone and all that is left is a massive pile of IOUs and millions of people who expect to receive the benefit they were forced to pay for.

kalm wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
It does not matter at this point where or on what it was spent or who did it. It was spent . It's gone and all that is left is a massive pile of IOUs and millions of people who expect to receive the benefit they were forced to pay for.

Of course it matters. Going forward, we need to understand that we're not as rich as we think and we probably can't afford wars of choice or tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy not to mention a whole slew of other spending.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
Of course it matters. Going forward, we need to understand that we're not as rich as we think and we probably can't afford wars of choice or tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy not to mention a whole slew of other spending.

"We" cannot afford tax cuts on someone else's labor.

CitadelGrad wrote:Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff wishes he had thought of it.

kalm wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
It does not matter at this point where or on what it was spent or who did it. It was spent . It's gone and all that is left is a massive pile of IOUs and millions of people who expect to receive the benefit they were forced to pay for.

Of course it matters. Going forward, we need to understand that we're not as rich as we think and we probably can't afford wars of choice or tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy not to mention a whole slew of other spending.

kalm wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
It does not matter at this point where or on what it was spent or who did it. It was spent . It's gone and all that is left is a massive pile of IOUs and millions of people who expect to receive the benefit they were forced to pay for.

Of course it matters. Going forward, we need to understand that we're not as rich as we think and we probably can't afford wars of choice or tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy not to mention a whole slew of other spending.

Col Hogan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Of course it matters. Going forward, we need to understand that we're not as rich as we think and we probably can't afford wars of choice or tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy not to mention a whole slew of other spending.

Let's stop funding the bogus "War on Poverty"...

A trillion dollars so far into a black hole...there are still as many poor people today (as a percentage of the population) as there was when the "War" started...so it's a total flop...

Then let's stop wasting money on the "War on Drugs"... legalize and tax...

I agree...these Wars of Choice must stop...

kalm wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
It does not matter at this point where or on what it was spent or who did it. It was spent . It's gone and all that is left is a massive pile of IOUs and millions of people who expect to receive the benefit they were forced to pay for.

Of course it matters. Going forward, we need to understand that we're not as rich as we think and we probably can't afford wars of choice or tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy not to mention a whole slew of other spending.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Of course it matters. Going forward, we need to understand that we're not as rich as we think and we probably can't afford wars of choice or tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy not to mention a whole slew of other spending.

"Wars of choice" and "tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy" are nice red meat for "progressives" and the uninformed, but when medicare, medicaid and social security account for about $130 Trillion in unfunded mandates, you guys have got to find a new rallying point.