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

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/econom ... t-of-money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The report also says that it is a myth that Social Security payments affect the federal deficit.

Of course not! Interest payments made on T-bonds to SS to cover the shortfall don't really count as government spending!

I remember at the same time Move-on.org sent me another fund raising letter saying the evil Repubs are liars and SS is doing just fine.
Would be doing fine if the Dems that controlled congress for 40 years didn't take the money out to buy votes and put in the worthless IOU's

--

Dear Bronco,
Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.

Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?
Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.

So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?

Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths?id=22141- ... WV8uhx&t=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.

I am still amazed that the term SS Trust fund is ever used.

Cman, I know you just like to stir shit up, but please tell me you didn't believe most of that article.

OL FU wrote:I am still amazed that the term SS Trust fund is ever used.

Cman, I know you just like to stir shit up, but please tell me you didn't believe most of that article.

What's incorrect about it?

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:I am still amazed that the term SS Trust fund is ever used.

Cman, I know you just like to stir **** up, but please tell me you didn't believe most of that article.

What's incorrect about it?

The idea that the federal government putting IOUs in a another federal government account creates a trust fund. It is like moving money from my left pocket to my right pocket.

According to the report, the Social Security trust fund is growing and is projected to peak at $4.2 trillion in 2024. At that point, Social Security will begin tapping savings to help pay benefits, especially as baby boomers en masse collect benefits. However, the fund will never "run dry."

The unfunded liability for both SS and medicare is estimated to be between $50 and $60T.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20 ... 1005/rss03" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Social Security will post nearly $600 billion in deficits over the next decade as the economy struggles to recover and millions of baby boomers stand at the brink of retirement, according to new congressional projections.

This year alone, Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. That figure swells to $130 billion when a new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included, though Congress has promised to repay any lost revenue from the tax cut.

Last year, Social Security posted its first deficit since the program was last overhauled in the 1980s. The CBO said at the time that Social Security would post surpluses for a few more years before permanently slipping into deficits in 2016.

So tell me how the "trust fund" is going to continue to grow. Interest from the federal government? which of course isn't going to cover the proposed deficits and of course even if it did would increase the federal deficit.

I will listen to anybody that knows more about how this works than me (which wouldn't be difficult to find) but you are first going to have to explain to me how the federal government for the last 20 years putting the excess proceeds from SS into the general fund and then issuing IOUs to SS, is creating a trust fund. And then someone is going to have to explain how a deficit in SS that is anticipated to occur for quite some time will allow that so called trust fund to grow.

"...Data through November 2010, released today by Standard & Poor’s for its S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show a deceleration in the annual growth rates in 17 of the 20 MSAs and the 10- and 20-City Composites......"

http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices ... --p-us----" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama's job-killing socialist programs continue to discourage business and promote private sector layoffs and unacceptably high unemployment. "...Employers took 1,483 mass layoff actions in December involving 137,992 workers, seasonally adjusted..."

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mmls.nr0.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's sad when the only good news is that layoffs in the last month were not as bad as the previous month.

The President's programs need to be repealed and the government reduced so that the private economy can be set free and increased economic growth can provide more opportunity for all.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's incorrect about it?

The idea that the federal government putting IOUs in a another federal government account creates a trust fund. It is like moving money from my left pocket to my right pocket.

So it's kinda like going to your bank and expecting all of the money you deposited over the past 20 years to be in their safe?

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
The idea that the federal government putting IOUs in a another federal government account creates a trust fund. It is like moving money from my left pocket to my right pocket.

So it's kinda like going to your bank and expecting all of the money you deposited over the past 20 years to be in their safe?

Only if you own the bank and are its only depositor. and then you owe more money to others than is in the deposit account. If that's what you mean, then yes.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
So it's kinda like going to your bank and expecting all of the money you deposited over the past 20 years to be in their safe?

Only if you own the bank and are its only depositor. and then you owe more money to others than is in the deposit account. If that's what you mean, then yes.

Good point.

But I'm really curious about this. SS is one entitlement program that is basically self funded, no? I hear from one side that it's bankrupt. But if it's self funded, is SS really the problem with our debt, or is it things like the unpaid-for wars, tax cuts, and other expenditures that are failing to meet this obligation?

Reading that was a blast from the past to me becuase it called to mind something I use to this day as an example of media bias. Back in 1992, a few days before the Bush the Elder vs. Clinton election, I saw a CBS News Report given by Dan Rather and an AP article on a "study" that showed how the Reagan policies of the 1980s were "bad." The study was by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The AP article described the EPI as a "private, non partisan think tank." Some of the assertions were totally contrary to data I'd seen reported in the past.

Suspicious, I ordered some information from the EPI. I got a packet in the mail. At that time the EPI described its mission as "Liberal alternative analysis of issues." One of its "founding scholars," Robert Reich, was working for the Clinton campaign. Non partisan? Right.

For the media to report on the study as they did in 1992 as though it was a serious, objective, analytical effort without mentioning that one of the "founding scholars" of the EPI was working for the Clinton campaign was, to me, THE clearest example of media bias I had (and have) ever seen. And, BTW, the study (which I obtained) was junk. It was full of misuse of statistical techniques and "massaging" data to obtain a pre-desired result.

I wrote a letter to the EPI sayng it's a shame that an academic would prostitute his academic credentials like that for political/philosophical purposes.

JohnStOnge wrote:Reading that was a blast from the past to me becuase it called to mind something I use to this day as an example of media bias. Back in 1992, a few days before the Bush the Elder vs. Clinton election, I saw a CBS News Report given by Dan Rather and an AP article on a "study" that showed how the Reagan policies of the 1980s were "bad." The study was by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The AP article described the EPI as a "private, non partisan think tank." Some of the assertions were totally contrary to data I'd seen reported in the past.

Suspicious, I ordered some information from the EPI. I got a packet in the mail. At that time the EPI described its mission as "Liberal alternative analysis of issues." One of its "founding scholars," Robert Reich, was working for the Clinton campaign. Non partisan? Right.

For the media to report on the study as they did in 1992 as though it was a serious, objective, analytical effort without mentioning that one of the "founding scholars" of the EPI was working for the Clinton campaign was, to me, THE clearest example of media bias I had (and have) ever seen. And, BTW, the study (which I obtained) was junk. It was full of misuse of statistical techniques and "massaging" data to obtain a pre-desired result.

I wrote a letter to the EPI sayng it's a shame that an academic would prostitute his academic credentials like that for political/philosophical purposes.

Could be, and both sides play at it. But if you've read Reich recently, he's very critical of Obama's economic policies and many of the economic mistakes the Clinton administration made. Too bad he had less of an influence than Summers and Rubin. It would also be very interesting to read the criticisms of the Reagan Policies. I'll bet ya they might have some traction.

But I'm really curious about this. SS is one entitlement program that is basically self funded, no? I hear from one side that it's bankrupt. But if it's self funded, is SS really the problem with our debt, or is it things like the unpaid-for wars, tax cuts, and other expenditures that are failing to meet this obligation?

I hope you are not doing that thing of calling a tax cut and "expenditure." It's not.

Otherwise, to me, it's all one system. We can play games on paper and say one particular part of it is "self funded." But the fact is that a certain amount of money is collected in taxes and a certain amount is paid out in expenditures.

The main thing about Social Security is it is not a matter of a person investing money...paying into the system...then enjoying a return at retirement. It's a matter of younger generations funding older generations. There is no big "pot money." Instead, it's the people in the workforce today paying social security taxes and those taxes funding payments who are no longer in the workforce (plus some other things).

As the ratio of those in the workforce to those no longer in the workforce diminishes, increasing stress will be placed on the system. It is not indefinitely sustainable as long as we continue to increase life expectancy and maintain a fixed "retirement age."

Just sit back and think about it.

JohnStOnge wrote:

But I'm really curious about this. SS is one entitlement program that is basically self funded, no? I hear from one side that it's bankrupt. But if it's self funded, is SS really the problem with our debt, or is it things like the unpaid-for wars, tax cuts, and other expenditures that are failing to meet this obligation?

I hope you are not doing that thing of calling a tax cut and "expenditure." It's not.

Otherwise, to me, it's all one system. We can play games on paper and say one particular part of it is "self funded." But the fact is that a certain amount of money is collected in taxes and a certain amount is paid out in expenditures.

The main thing about Social Security is it is not a matter of a person investing money...paying into the system...then enjoying a return at retirement. It's a matter of younger generations funding older generations. There is no big "pot money." Instead, it's the people in the workforce today paying social security taxes and those taxes funding payments who are no longer in the workforce (plus some other things).

As the ratio of those in the workforce to those no longer in the workforce diminishes, increasing stress will be placed on the system. It is not indefinitely sustainable as long as we continue to increase life expectancy and maintain a fixed "retirement age."

Just sit back and think about it.

B.S. We agreed as a society to fund this thing through our paychecks, and it has and can continue to be adjusted to meet changes in population. Each unrelated spending increase thereafter should have been paid for with revenue. Not voodoo economic revenue, but real revenue.

I would like to know where this "WE AGREED" came into play. Last time I looked, tax paying voters were never given a chance. Basically, as it pertains to the burden of over taxation in America, one can look no further than to the axis of evil themselves, 1-Woodrow Wilson, 2-FDR, 3-Barack Obama.

THAT'S FACT!

catamount man wrote:I would like to know where this "WE AGREED" came into play. Last time I looked, tax paying voters were never given a chance. Basically, as it pertains to the burden of over taxation in America, one can look no further than to the axis of evil themselves, 1-Woodrow Wilson, 2-FDR, 3-Barack Obama.

THAT'S FACT!

We've so far agreed as a society to not overturn it.

catamount man wrote:I would like to know where this "WE AGREED" came into play. Last time I looked, tax paying voters were never given a chance. Basically, as it pertains to the burden of over taxation in America, one can look no further than to the axis of evil themselves, 1-Woodrow Wilson, 2-FDR, 3-Barack Obama.

THAT'S FACT!

schizophrenia is a hell of a disease.

death dealer wrote:

catamount man wrote:I would like to know where this "WE AGREED" came into play. Last time I looked, tax paying voters were never given a chance. Basically, as it pertains to the burden of over taxation in America, one can look no further than to the axis of evil themselves, 1-Woodrow Wilson, 2-FDR, 3-Barack Obama.

THAT'S FACT!

schizophrenia is a hell of a disease.

DD my vote is on manic-depressive.

A schizo would be talking about how the voices in his head told him that Wilson-FDR-Obama are evil.

CID1990 wrote:

death dealer wrote: schizophrenia is a hell of a disease.

DD my vote is on manic-depressive.

A schizo would be talking about how the voices in his head told him that Wilson-FDR-Obama are evil.

Maybe catman is really a psych student and we are his petri dish.

Why not? You can set up a control and variables, note stimulus and response, count and categorize posts, and add a little bullshit statistical analysis, take a coupla screen shots for your homework... it would be a lot more fun than writing a paper or doing any actual analysis.

...pretty weak tea, of course, but plenty good enough for most weak-minded sociology professors.

native wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
DD my vote is on manic-depressive.

A schizo would be talking about how the voices in his head told him that Wilson-FDR-Obama are evil.

Maybe catman is really a psych student and we are his petri dish.

Why not? You can set up a control and variables, note stimulus and response, count and categorize posts, and add a little bullshit statistical analysis, take a coupla screen shots for your homework... it would be a lot more fun than writing a paper or doing any actual analysis.

...pretty weak tea, of course, but plenty good enough for most weak-minded sociology professors.

He's got a step on all of us!


I think this would be a great place for a politician to get a snapshot of the economic, political, and social spectrums.

houndawg wrote:

native wrote:
Maybe catman is really a psych student and we are his petri dish.

Why not? You can set up a control and variables, note stimulus and response, count and categorize posts, and add a little bullshit statistical analysis, take a coupla screen shots for your homework... it would be a lot more fun than writing a paper or doing any actual analysis.

...pretty weak tea, of course, but plenty good enough for most weak-minded sociology professors.

He's got a step on all of us!


I think this would be a great place for a politician to get a snapshot of the economic, political, and social spectrums.

Scary!

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Only if you own the bank and are its only depositor. and then you owe more money to others than is in the deposit account. If that's what you mean, then yes.

Good point.

But I'm really curious about this. SS is one entitlement program that is basically self funded, no? I hear from one side that it's bankrupt. But if it's self funded, is SS really the problem with our debt, or is it things like the unpaid-for wars, tax cuts, and other expenditures that are failing to meet this obligation?

It would be interesting to know how the government accounts for it. But for the last couple of decades it has run a surplus which the federal government has tapped. (whether they actually fund with T-bills I don't know but let's assume they do). If accounted for in the same way a business would (forgetting the huge future liabilities that would have to be accounted for now which the government doesn't do because they report on the cash basis) the impact of the " trust fund" would be zero because as I said it is effectively putting money in one pocket from another. The point is that looking into the future without changes we no SS will run a deficit, that money has to come from somewhere.