also for those who dont know, every us citizen gets an itemized tax taken out of their income that is designated social security and another for medicare on top of what is deducted for federal income tax. The itemized deductions are obviously supposed to go to those particular programs. In reality there is a surplus in social security every year but instead of saving that for the people who have to retire in the future, like a normal pension program, our gov't just spends it as part of the general fund.
The fact that this breakdown from the whitehouse doesnt reflect this well known fact really puts it in the arena of propaganda, IMHO.
You're tax $$ at work!
-
takingarms1
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am
In before (*insert name*).
Imho certain people (*insert name*) are so stupid that I WANT them to stay at home and I want to pay for it.
Imho certain people (*insert name*) are so stupid that I WANT them to stay at home and I want to pay for it.
Last edited by lexaal on Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have a johnson photo in my profile since 2010.
That's why the Republicans are trying to heroically save us from this well-known and perfectly-okay fact by ending Social Security altogether!TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Apr 17 2011, 11:37 AM) also for those who dont know, every us citizen gets an itemized tax taken out of their income that is designated social security and another for medicare on top of what is deducted for federal income tax. The itemized deductions are obviously supposed to go to those particular programs. In reality there is a surplus in social security every year but instead of saving that for the people who have to retire in the future, like a normal pension program, our gov't just spends it as part of the general fund.
The fact that this breakdown from the whitehouse doesnt reflect this well known fact really puts it in the arena of propaganda, IMHO.
Fun fact: the House Republicans nearly passed a budget that would have killed Social Security and Medicare! All the Democrats refused to vote, so a bunch of Republicans had to go back and change their votes from "Yes" to "No" to keep it from actually passing!
Did you know that when you deposit money into your bank account, that money doesn't ACTUALLY go into a big pile of money with your name on it? In fact, the money you deposit immediately goes into funding the bank's other operations; the money in your bank account is merely a promise that they'll be able to come up with that much money somehow in the event that you decide to withdraw it.
Last edited by Jimen on Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Clay_Pigeon
- Posts: 3211
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:00 am
- Location: my pod
I actually listened to a very interesting podcast on this. I'll post it, but here's what I rememberTakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Apr 17 2011, 11:37 AM) also for those who dont know, every us citizen gets an itemized tax taken out of their income that is designated social security and another for medicare on top of what is deducted for federal income tax. The itemized deductions are obviously supposed to go to those particular programs. In reality there is a surplus in social security every year but instead of saving that for the people who have to retire in the future, like a normal pension program, our gov't just spends it as part of the general fund.
1) Social Security has been running surpluses for much of its history.
1) Saving those surpluses is not trivial, however. The prospect of any government saving money is trickier than it looks. Most governments save money through US Treasuries.
2) The Social Security program has essentially done the same thing, but it creates this weird situation where the government is lending itself money and promising to pay itself back (with interest) later. It seems perverse, but it essentially converts a government surplus into debt.
3) As a result, those surpluses have essentially subsidized the cost of government services, training people to believe that government services cost less than they really do.
4) Those days are coming to an end, as the government now has to pay itself back to cover the increasing cost of Social Security.
Edit: Here's the link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/12/...ity-trust-funds
BTW, planet money is a great podcast and I highly recommend it.
Last edited by Clay_Pigeon on Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me." -2 Cor 12:9
"Never know how long I've waited, anticipated your smile pressed against mine." -Running
-
takingarms1
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am
It would only be perfectly ok if it was expected that we would continue to run surpluses. But you and I both know that at some point in the near future, the money going out of that program is going to exceed the money coming in... and then the program either gets cut or we have massive tax increases. What's your preference? Personally I prefer cuts because I'm not expecting to get anything out of the program anyway.Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Apr 17 2011, 03:34 PM) That's why the Republicans are trying to heroically save us from this well-known and perfectly-okay fact by ending Social Security altogether!
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
- - - -
#1 DAMN YOU RAUMVOGEL! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
#2, anyone other than me catch the complete contradiction in Jimen's quote? Let's break it down...
As an aside, saying that 'the Republicans' are trying to kill social security is like saying 'the Democrats' are trying to collapse the US economy to replace it with a socialist utopia. Yes, I'm sure you could find some radical Republicans that would rather just see social security scrapped and replaced with another system, but that's not indicative of Republicans as a whole. Just as you can find some radical Democrats who would prefer to see our system collapse and be replaced with a socialist system.
Also, I underlined 'pretty much' because #'s 2 and 3, are only sort of true. In the case of the relationship between the US government and Social Security the US government was using accounting gimmicks to post surpluses (Clinton years) or smaller deficits (see all other Presidents) while Social Security was listing that deficit spending (ie, new debt) as an asset. This is the sort of thing Kenneth Lay (see Enron) went to jail for. The only place where this untruth can be uncovered is by looking at the hard data. The easiest example to use is Clinton's budget surplus claims in 1999 and 2000, simply because we should see the national debt going down in the years of the surplus, whereas in other years there was reported deficits so the numbers are a little harder to see. In short, we have been lied to repeatedly by our government and our media.
For confirmation of the charges above let's turn to "The worldwide leader in news"... CNN article from Sept 27, 2000...
Pulling two quotes from that article...
QUOTE President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States," Clinton said Wednesday morning.[/quote]
QUOTE Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history."The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.[/quote]
Sounds awesome doesn't it? We PAID DOWN $223 billion of national debt!
Looking at the government website treasury direct, you can see that it was a lie.
National debt 1998: $5.526 trillion
National debt 1999: $5.656 trillion
National debt 2000: $5.674 trillion
Don't get me wrong, I long for the days when our national debt only climbed $18 billion in one year, but unless we can have year after year of internet bubbles that never end those windfall years aren't repeatable. Regardless, we were not told the truth by our government or the media.
#2, anyone other than me catch the complete contradiction in Jimen's quote? Let's break it down...
Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Apr 17 2011, 03:34 PM) That's why the Republicans are trying to heroically save us from this well-known and perfectly-okay fact by ending Social Security altogether!
Hmmm, if they actually wanted to 'kill social security' as you put it, why would they not just let this bill pass? You should get your 'news' from sources other than HuffPo or sources that simply repost Huffpo articles...Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Apr 17 2011, 03:34 PM) Fun fact: the House Republicans nearly passed a budget that would have killed Social Security and Medicare! All the Democrats refused to vote, so a bunch of Republicans had to go back and change their votes from "Yes" to "No" to keep it from actually passing!
As an aside, saying that 'the Republicans' are trying to kill social security is like saying 'the Democrats' are trying to collapse the US economy to replace it with a socialist utopia. Yes, I'm sure you could find some radical Republicans that would rather just see social security scrapped and replaced with another system, but that's not indicative of Republicans as a whole. Just as you can find some radical Democrats who would prefer to see our system collapse and be replaced with a socialist system.
Clay, I didn't listen to the podcast, but pretty much everything on your list is true except the last one (or at least the premise of the last one). Point #4 suggests that because those days are coming to an end social security is not effectively insolvent. The bottom line is that without any changes social security would go bankrupt even if they hadn't raided the coffers over and over. It would've been years from now, but it would happen under the current system. There isn't a single dissenting actuary or economist on this subject.Clay_Pigeon wrote:QUOTE (Clay_Pigeon @ Apr 17 2011, 04:31 PM) I actually listened to a very interesting podcast on this. I'll post it, but here's what I remember
1) Social Security has been running surpluses for much of its history.
1) Saving those surpluses is not trivial, however. The prospect of any government saving money is trickier than it looks. Most governments save money through US Treasuries.
2) The Social Security program has essentially done the same thing, but it creates this weird situation where the government is lending itself money and promising to pay itself back (with interest) later. It seems perverse, but it essentially converts a government surplus into debt.
3) As a result, those surpluses have essentially subsidized the cost of government services, training people to believe that government services cost less than they really do.
4) Those days are coming to an end, as the government now has to pay itself back to cover the increasing cost of Social Security.
Edit: Here's the link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/12/...ity-trust-funds
BTW, planet money is a great podcast and I highly recommend it.
Also, I underlined 'pretty much' because #'s 2 and 3, are only sort of true. In the case of the relationship between the US government and Social Security the US government was using accounting gimmicks to post surpluses (Clinton years) or smaller deficits (see all other Presidents) while Social Security was listing that deficit spending (ie, new debt) as an asset. This is the sort of thing Kenneth Lay (see Enron) went to jail for. The only place where this untruth can be uncovered is by looking at the hard data. The easiest example to use is Clinton's budget surplus claims in 1999 and 2000, simply because we should see the national debt going down in the years of the surplus, whereas in other years there was reported deficits so the numbers are a little harder to see. In short, we have been lied to repeatedly by our government and our media.
For confirmation of the charges above let's turn to "The worldwide leader in news"... CNN article from Sept 27, 2000...
Pulling two quotes from that article...
QUOTE President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States," Clinton said Wednesday morning.[/quote]
QUOTE Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history."The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.[/quote]
Sounds awesome doesn't it? We PAID DOWN $223 billion of national debt!
Looking at the government website treasury direct, you can see that it was a lie.
National debt 1998: $5.526 trillion
National debt 1999: $5.656 trillion
National debt 2000: $5.674 trillion
Don't get me wrong, I long for the days when our national debt only climbed $18 billion in one year, but unless we can have year after year of internet bubbles that never end those windfall years aren't repeatable. Regardless, we were not told the truth by our government or the media.
What Allegiance needs is a little more cowbell. 