Deficit comes in below projections, thanks to `off-budget' borrowing (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Before the Bushneviks begin trumpeting how the deficit has been reduced under their president, it is time to create a pre-emptive thread on the subject, which will debunk the lie.

As our government closes its books for the fiscal year, they are getting ready to announce that this year's deficit will be around 250 billion, which is 58 billion less than last year, and 77 billion less than the prediction for this year.

The real story here is what our government is NOT telling us. In order to get to those numbers, our government raided the Social Security trust fund, taking 177 billion from it, which is the entire surplus in the fund. Technically, they say they are "borrowing" the money, which means they intend to pay it back. Assuming they have good intentions, then the real deficit is a whopping 437 billion for the year, 119 billion more in the red than the deficit generated last year.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to debunk the spin that the Bushneviks are about to throw our way. When their report comes, it will be in the form of yet another lie.

Article s here.

 

[Iriemon]

Before the Bushneviks begin trumpeting how the deficit has been reduced under their president, it is time to create a pre-emptive thread on the subject, which will debunk the lie.

As our government closes its books for the fiscal year, they are getting ready to announce that this year's deficit will be around 250 billion, which is 58 billion less than last year, and 77 billion less than the prediction for this year.

The real story here is what our government is NOT telling us. In order to get to those numbers, our government raided the Social Security trust fund, taking 177 billion from it, which is the entire surplus in the fund. Technically, they say they are "borrowing" the money, which means they intend to pay it back. Assuming they have good intentions, then the real deficit is a whopping 437 billion for the year, 119 billion more in the red than the deficit generated last year.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to debunk the spin that the Bushneviks are about to throw our way. When their report comes, it will be in the form of yet another lie.

Article s here.

Damn straight! Bastards steal the SS taxes we pay that are supposed to be saved in the SS trust fund for *our* retirement, to fund their stinking deficits, and then have the gall to misrepresent the size of the deficit with our stolen money!

Another more accurate way to look at the true deficit is the amount of money the Government had to borrow:

09/28/2006 $8,473,684,136,460.62
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

Money Government had to borrow this year: $541 billion.

To be fair, if the operating deficit is $437 billion this year, that is an improvement over last year, when the operating deficit was $493 billion (http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf), and the amount borrowed this year $541 billion is a little less than the Govt borrowed last year at $553 billion. You are probably comparing the operating deficit of this year with the total deficit (including the SS surplus) from last year.

 

[jujuman13]

One expects some form of response from TOT, ah well perhaps he is unable to mount an adequate response.

AS I keep repeating:-



AMERICA IS A BANKRUPT NATION.

Bankrupt means you have insufficient assets to cover your debts.

 

[danarhea]

One expects some form of response from TOT, ah well perhaps he is unable to mount an adequate response.

AS I keep repeating:-



AMERICA IS A BANKRUPT NATION.

Bankrupt means you have insufficient assets to cover your debts.

Its going to be crickets from him and the other Bushneviks. There is no leg for them to stand on.

 

[BWG]

Its going to be crickets from him and the other Bushneviks. There is no leg for them to stand on.

It's never stopped them before....:lol:

 

[danarhea]

It's never stopped them before....:lol:

It is now. :rofl

 

[Goobieman]

Before the Bushneviks begin trumpeting how the deficit has been reduced under their president, it is time to create a pre-emptive thread on the subject, which will debunk the lie.

As our government closes its books for the fiscal year, they are getting ready to announce that this year's deficit will be around 250 billion, which is 58 billion less than last year, and 77 billion less than the prediction for this year.

The real story here is what our government is NOT telling us. In order to get to those numbers, our government raided the Social Security trust fund,

This happens every year, and has happened every year since sometime in the 1950s. Apparently, it only matters when a Republican is in office, and this is "news" only to people that dont pay attention.

 

[Iriemon]

This happens every year, and has happened every year since sometime in the 1950s. Apparently, it only matters when a Republican is in office, and this is "news" only to people that dont pay attention.

Not true at least in a meaningful way. SS was a "pay-go" system until the SS Reform Act in 1983 when taxes were raised to create surpluses to be saved in a trust fund for the boomers' retirements. Until that time there was never much of a surplus for the government to steal.

It is true that the fund has been raided since then; but that is because the soaring deficits of Reagan/Bush/Bush have created a huge debt that the SS trust fund has been used to offset.

 

[Stinger]

Not true at least in a meaningful way. SS was a "pay-go" system until the SS Reform Act in 1983 when taxes were raised to create surpluses to be saved in a trust fund for the boomers' retirements. Until that time there was never much of a surplus for the government to steal.

It is true that the fund has been raided since then; but that is because the soaring deficits of Reagan/Bush/Bush have created a huge debt that the SS trust fund has been used to offset.

What do you propose they do with the money then? It is put into Treasury Bills, which of course is a debt instrument as used by corporations and foriegn countries. What should be done instead?

 

[Goobieman]

What do you propose they do with the money then? It is put into Treasury Bills, which of course is a debt instrument as used by corporations and foriegn countries. What should be done instead?

Well, silly, it should be reserevd for such a time that a Democrat is President, at which point it will be OK to use.

Fact is, SocSec $ goes into the general fund and SocSec benifits are paid from same. Any SocSec "surplus" is a bookeeping entry, and nothing more. It sbeen like that since the 50s.

Any denial of this is nothing more than bigoted partisanship.
To wit, Iriemon;s utterly partisan attempst to blame it all on the GOP:

Until that time there was never much of a surplus for the government to steal.

But, it -was- stolen.

It is true that the fund has been raided since then

Just as it is true that it was raided -before- then.

 

[Stinger]

What do you propose they do with the money then? It is put into Treasury Bills, which of course is a debt instrument as used by corporations and foriegn countries. What should be done instead?

Well, silly, it should be reserevd for such a time that a Democrat is President, at which point it will be OK to use.

And what should be done with it in the meantime, should they just put it under a mattress somewhere?

Fact is, SocSec $ goes into the general fund and SocSec benifits are paid from same. Any SocSec "surplus" is a bookeeping entry, and nothing more. It sbeen like that since the 50s.

No it goes into Treasury Bills and then into general revenues. Just like when you buy a Treasury Bill for $100 you get a certificate which you can redeam later and the government spends the $100 you paid for it. Same with the SS, the $100 comes in from the employer and it has to be put somewhere? Where do you propose? Where does Iriemon? Bet he won't answer.

 

[Iriemon]

What do you propose they do with the money then? It is put into Treasury Bills, which of course is a debt instrument as used by corporations and foriegn countries. What should be done instead?

Do you mean given that the Govt has run up trillions in debt since 1981; or under a scenario where the Govt had not run up trillions in debt?

 

[Goobieman]

And what should be done with it in the meantime, should they just put it under a mattress somewhere?

IMHO, we need to allow people to opt out of the system entirely.
That will solve the problem as to where to put the money.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
What do you propose they do with the money then? It is put into Treasury Bills, which of course is a debt instrument as used by corporations and foriegn countries. What should be done instead?

Do you mean ..............

I mean exactly what I asked and as predicted in a subsequent post you didn't answer and now try to :spinut of answering.

Try again, what should they do with the money instead of putting it into Treasury Bills?

 

[Stinger]

IMHO, we need to allow people to opt out of the system entirely.
That will solve the problem as to where to put the money.

I agree. Or at least a partial privitization.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, silly, it should be reserevd for such a time that a Democrat is President, at which point it will be OK to use.

Fact is, SocSec $ goes into the general fund and SocSec benifits are paid from same. Any SocSec "surplus" is a bookeeping entry, and nothing more. It sbeen like that since the 50s.

Any denial of this is nothing more than bigoted partisanship.
To wit, Iriemon;s utterly partisan attempst to blame it all on the GOP:

But, it -was- stolen.

Just as it is true that it was raided -before- then.

There was no meaningful trutst fund to raid before then. You can see the history of the SS surplus/deficit taxes at http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf Table 1. Until the mid-80s, there was little or no surpuls/deficit because it was pay-go; the trust fund was not a stockpile of savings for future benefits but a slush fund to hold minor excesses and pay minor deficiencies.

In many years prior to the mid-80s there was a deficit in the SS taxes. After the mid-80 the surpluses exploded (now in excess of $150 billion a year) because the taxes were increased to build up a fund of savings for the boomers. That is what has been stolen to finance the Republican debt.

 

[Iriemon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
What do you propose they do with the money then? It is put into Treasury Bills, which of course is a debt instrument as used by corporations and foriegn countries. What should be done instead?


I mean exactly what I asked and as predicted in a subsequent post you didn't answer and now try to :spinut of answering.

Try again, what should they do with the money instead of putting it into Treasury Bills?

Since you won't clarify your question, I'll answer it in the context of what has happened. Since the Govt has run of trillions of dollars of debt thanks to the last three Republican administrations, then it makes economic sense for the Govt to borrow from the SS trust fund instead of China. Although personally, I'd prefer the Govt to have segregated the funds and been prohibited from stealing *our* SS savings, then they wouldn't be able to mislead people about the size of the defict being *only* $250 billion when in fact the operating deficit is almost double that amount.

It would be a different story if the Republicans had not pandered their tax cuts to the pass the buck generation and burdened the govt with another $7 1/2 trillion in debt over the past 25 years.

 

[Iriemon]

Goobieman: Fact is, SocSec $ goes into the general fund and SocSec benifits are paid from same. Any SocSec "surplus" is a bookeeping entry, and nothing more. It sbeen like that since the 50s.

No it goes into Treasury Bills and then into general revenues. Just like when you buy a Treasury Bill for $100 you get a certificate which you can redeam later and the government spends the $100 you paid for it. Same with the SS, the $100 comes in from the employer and it has to be put somewhere? Where do you propose? Where does Iriemon? Bet he won't answer.

Goobieman's answer is closer to correct practically speaking, which is why you hear the admin bragging that the deficit is only $250 billion this year; it is only that low because they are treating SS revenues as if they were general revenues.

The money from an accounting point of view goes into the SS trust fund but it is "loaned" to the government thru T-Bills. It is "stealing" because instead of true assets, the SS fund has govt debt, which is a loan from the Government to itself, and which the Govt has no assets to redeem.

It would be like some individual with $100,000 in cash saved for retirement. He has assets of $100,000. Then he takes the $100,000 in the bank and uses it to buy a boat, and in its place he makes a $100,000 loan to himself.

He still has $100,000 in assets as a loan receivable -- just like the SS trust fund "assets" are loans receivable from the govt. But is the guy still in the same shape retirement wise?

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
What do you propose they do with the money then? It is put into Treasury Bills, which of course is a debt instrument as used by corporations and foriegn countries. What should be done instead?


I mean exactly what I asked and as predicted in a subsequent post you didn't answer and now try to :spinut of answering.

Try again, what should they do with the money instead of putting it into Treasury Bills?

Since you won't clarify your question,........

My question is quite clear and needs no further clarification. :spin:

I'd prefer the Govt to have segregated the funds .....................

Segregate them where? Where do you want them to put them and be specific and this time try to do it without using the word Republican since that is your typical attempt at getting out of answering direct questions.

This is about the government not a party.

Try atain.

 

[Stinger]

Goobieman's answer is closer to correct practically speaking,

Actually mine is, the SS funds are used to purchase Treasury Bills, THEN the money goes ino the general revenues. And we all know how it works from there so no need for you to keep repeating it.

What do you want changed, were do you want the money to go instead?

 

[Captain America]

IMHO, we need to allow people to opt out of the system entirely.
That will solve the problem as to where to put the money.

Right on Goobie.

It matters not to me which party abuses my SS investment, it pi$$es me off.

All of you people should feel the same and should quit being apologists just because it is your party that happens to be doing it now. There is no justification for ripping off the people.

 

[Iriemon]

Right on Goobie.

It matters not to me which party abuses my SS investment, it pi$$es me off.

All of you people should feel the same and should quit being apologists just because it is your party that happens to be doing it now. There is no justification for ripping off the people.

I agree with some of the sentiments about SS. I think it is inane, for example, for the Govt to be paying the dole to folks like Warren Buffet when we are running $1/2 trillion in the red every year.

However, SS was passed for a purpose. There are hordes of folks who are too poor, too stupid or too unlucky to amass a substantial savings when they reach an age where they are too old to work or who die young leaving dependents or become disabled. Without SS, these hordes would be living under freeways and begging at stoplights. Most folks don't want to live in an America like that.

So while I agree that SS has flaws, IMO the nation needs some kind of SS system.

 

[AndrewC]

I agree with some of the sentiments about SS. I think it is inane, for example, for the Govt to be paying the dole to folks like Warren Buffet when we are running $1/2 trillion in the red every year.

However, SS was passed for a purpose. There are hordes of folks who are too poor, too stupid or too unlucky to amass a substantial savings when they reach an age where they are too old to work or who die young leaving dependents or become disabled. Without SS, these hordes would be living under freeways and begging at stoplights. Most folks don't want to live in an America like that.

So while I agree that SS has flaws, IMO the nation needs some kind of SS system.

But when society is unwilling to make these programs worthwhile, why waste money and time? Why give people a false sense of security where none exists? If Katrina taught us nothing else it is that we are alone. American society has degenerated into a system where by those that can do will and those that can't won't. Everyone must be made to understand this. Keeping this charade alive to pacify the populous serves no one.

Welfare, pensions, government subsidies and other programs seek to pacify the masses. That is their sole purpose and why they are tolerated. Let Americans see the true cost of the products they buy. Tell them they are responsible for their retirement, not the government and not their employer. It is better for them in the end. I understand that this would be painful for many. However perhaps real change will come from that pain.

 

[Iriemon]

But when society is unwilling to make these programs worthwhile, why waste money and time? Why give people a false sense of security where none exists? If Katrina taught us nothing else it is that we are alone. American society has degenerated into a system where by those that can do will and those that can't won't. Everyone must be made to understand this. Keeping this charade alive to pacify the populous serves no one.

Welfare, pensions, government subsidies and other programs seek to pacify the masses. That is their sole purpose and why they are tolerated. Let Americans see the true cost of the products they buy. Tell them they are responsible for their retirement, not the government and not their employer. It is better for them in the end. I understand that this would be painful for many. However perhaps real change will come from that pain.

I agree there would be real change. We'd have hordes of old folks starving in the street.

 

[danarhea]

Actually mine is, the SS funds are used to purchase Treasury Bills, THEN the money goes ino the general revenues. And we all know how it works from there so no need for you to keep repeating it.

What do you want changed, were do you want the money to go instead?

That is exactly what Enron got in trouble for here in Houston. They borrowed money from one of their own accounts, then stated the debt as an asset.