Entitlements in America.

[Sparkles]

What poll are you looking at because the majority of the ones I've seen have above 70% of Americans as strong supporters of entitlements. They will accept some changes but the would be against any major changes to Medicare or Social Security.

And I would agree. I think most people want have government take care of them. And most people don't want social security and medicare to change.

That's nice. That's true. That's also irrelevant.

Social Security and Medicare, do not work. They are just another failed socialist system, like the soviet union, China, Venezuela, North Korea, and every other impoverished nation under the destruction of socialist policies.

Social Security if not changed significantly, and Medicare too, will bankrupt this country, just as socialism did the Soviet Union. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. There is nothing so special about the US, that if we try something failed in every other country, will not have the same result here.

 

[Boo Radley]

And I would agree. I think most people want have government take care of them. And most people don't want social security and medicare to change.

That's nice. That's true. That's also irrelevant.

Social Security and Medicare, do not work. They are just another failed socialist system, like the soviet union, China, Venezuela, North Korea, and every other impoverished nation under the destruction of socialist policies.

Social Security if not changed significantly, and Medicare too, will bankrupt this country, just as socialism did the Soviet Union. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. There is nothing so special about the US, that if we try something failed in every other country, will not have the same result here.

Define not working.

Some food for thought:

Social Security is the most successful social program in American history. It shouldn't be privatized; its benefits shouldn't be cut; and the retirement age shouldn't be raised.

Before Social Security was established 75 years ago, more than half of our elderly population lived in poverty. Because of Social Security, the poverty figure for seniors today is less than 10%. Social Security also provides dignified support for millions of widows, widowers, orphans and people with disabilities.

Saving Social Security - Los Angeles Times

Fact #6: Almost half of the elderly would be poor without Social Security. Social Security lifts 13 million elderly Americans out of poverty.

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security on the Program's 75th Anniversary — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

 

[Sparkles]

Define not working.

Some food for thought:

Social Security is the most successful social program in American history. It shouldn't be privatized; its benefits shouldn't be cut; and the retirement age shouldn't be raised.

Before Social Security was established 75 years ago, more than half of our elderly population lived in poverty. Because of Social Security, the poverty figure for seniors today is less than 10%. Social Security also provides dignified support for millions of widows, widowers, orphans and people with disabilities.

Saving Social Security - Los Angeles Times

Fact #6: Almost half of the elderly would be poor without Social Security. Social Security lifts 13 million elderly Americans out of poverty.

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security on the Program's 75th Anniversary — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

Most successful social program in American history? Only if you define success, as in consistently giving a horrible rate of return, have a consistent reduction of benefits, while having an ever growing demand for money, and at the same time driving the country into bankruptcy.

Yeah, most successful my butt. I've heard ignorance before, but that's special.

The average Social Security payment is only $1000. You can earn more working full time, which is exactly what more people would do. Far from being saved from poverty, they'd likely be more wealthy without social security. In fact, if you take the amount of money people have dumped in social security, and put it in mutual funds, most would be millionaires by now. Instead they are barely able to survive, trying to cram their living expenses into a social security check, instead of getting a job and working.

And Medicare is very efficient? At what? Ruining the country? Driving us into bankruptcy? Hello, did you miss the memo? Medicare is going to go broke by 2014 if not for the large tax on Capital Gains. But even then, it will only delay the coming crash.

Crazy talk from the wacky left here.

 

[Boo Radley]

Most successful social program in American history? Only if you define success, as in consistently giving a horrible rate of return, have a consistent reduction of benefits, while having an ever growing demand for money, and at the same time driving the country into bankruptcy.

Yeah, most successful my butt. I've heard ignorance before, but that's special.

The average Social Security payment is only $1000. You can earn more working full time, which is exactly what more people would do. Far from being saved from poverty, they'd likely be more wealthy without social security. In fact, if you take the amount of money people have dumped in social security, and put it in mutual funds, most would be millionaires by now. Instead they are barely able to survive, trying to cram their living expenses into a social security check, instead of getting a job and working.

And Medicare is very efficient? At what? Ruining the country? Driving us into bankruptcy? Hello, did you miss the memo? Medicare is going to go broke by 2014 if not for the large tax on Capital Gains. But even then, it will only delay the coming crash.

Crazy talk from the wacky left here.

Effective in lowing the number of elderly living in proverty. Perhaps you will argue that isn't true? If so, we can dig into the numbers. Or perhaps you can argue we should not be concerned with that? Maybe, but that wouldn;t prove it ineffective. But I think you're arguing that it is costly. True is is cheaper to let people live in proverty and die early. A tobacco excutive once stated clearly that less people smoking meant people would live longer and thus cost more. That's true as well, but I wouldn't promote it. And I'm not sure having the elderly coming in to ers, and dealing with the proverty wouldn't have its own costs.

Our debt problem is not due to medicare. We've fought wars without asking that they be paid for. We've given breaks and tax dollar money to business and wealthy folks. We not demanded anything we want be paid for. And while I won't argue all expense was proper or needed or wise, I would argue that decreasing the poverty the elderly live in and helping with health concerns was worth the cost. Not only that, but I would end medicare and implement UHC, through a two teired single payer system (meaing if you want better or more coverage and you can afford it, go for it).

 

[iliveonramen]

Social Security and Medicare, do not work

They do work...elderly poverty rates were astronomical before Social Security was passed and the insurance industry was getting to the point they wouldn't cover retirees...except for a very hefty premium most couldn't afford.
Social Security and Elderly Poverty

Before Social security the elderly poverty rate was at 50%. It's closer to under 10% now. It's pretty successful...unles success to you is not paying taxes.

Social Security if not changed significantly, and Medicare too, will bankrupt this country, just as socialism did the Soviet Union. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. There is nothing so special about the US, that if we try something failed in every other country, will not have the same result here.

It wasn't Social Security or Medicare that doomed the Soviet Union economically. Social Security is fine...it's been fine. The problem with Medicare is our rising health costs which are ridiculous. We spend almost a fifth of our economy in the healthcare system and it's rising much higher than the rate of inflation. That will be what kills this country...an expensive healthcare system that eats away at consumer spending power.

 

[Helix]

That will be what kills this country...an expensive healthcare system that eats away at consumer spending power.

that, and suicidal energy policy.

 

[cpwill]

I find it sad, though not surprising, that he focuses on the poor families as a threat to the middle class and not those more wealthy.

well, i suppose it's because one of them is taking from the middle class, whereas the other is paying even more.

 

[cpwill]

Define not working.

Some food for thought:

Social Security is the most successful social program in American history. It shouldn't be privatized; its benefits shouldn't be cut; and the retirement age shouldn't be raised.

which unfortunately means that it should be allowed to crash and burn.

the people who argue for no changes to the system are the ones that are the real enemies of our entitlement programs.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

beg pardon?

Medicare Fraud Estimated at $60 Bn Annually

though, of course, there is one portion of Medicare that would actually qualify for your description...

Part D. Which operates roughly like the Ryan plan. And subsequently came in 40% under budget while remaining extremely popular with the Seniors who chose it.

 

[Sparkles]

Effective in lowing the number of elderly living in proverty. Perhaps you will argue that isn't true? If so, we can dig into the numbers. Or perhaps you can argue we should not be concerned with that? Maybe, but that wouldn;t prove it ineffective. But I think you're arguing that it is costly. True is is cheaper to let people live in proverty and die early. A tobacco excutive once stated clearly that less people smoking meant people would live longer and thus cost more. That's true as well, but I wouldn't promote it. And I'm not sure having the elderly coming in to ers, and dealing with the proverty wouldn't have its own costs.

Our debt problem is not due to medicare. We've fought wars without asking that they be paid for. We've given breaks and tax dollar money to business and wealthy folks. We not demanded anything we want be paid for. And while I won't argue all expense was proper or needed or wise, I would argue that decreasing the poverty the elderly live in and helping with health concerns was worth the cost. Not only that, but I would end medicare and implement UHC, through a two teired single payer system (meaing if you want better or more coverage and you can afford it, go for it).

Actually it wasn't a tobacco executive. It was the finding of some research. The left usually simply applies inconvenient truths to people they don't like, so as to justify ignoring it.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't say that SS lowers poverty among elderly, because I've been to those people. I ran home delivery medication for several years. People who live off social security are undoubtedly impoverished.

Further, those seniors who choose to work, are better off by far. Plus many choose to not work in order to collect social security, meaning that more elderly are impoverished because of the program.

Lastly, I would suggest that many elderly have chosen to not save for their retirement because they believed social security was there. Thus, the reason some are poor is specifically due to the belief that government would take care of them.

A perfect example of this was welfare reform in the 90s. The media and government, and the leftists all said that reforming welfare would sink millions into poverty. Instead, people got jobs, and were better off after welfare reform.

One specific example, was a news report I watched on my local TV station. The reporter was asking a single mother about being kicked off welfare, and asked her how this would impact her and her children. The lady looked her in the face and said "oh we'll be better off for sure. I'll have more money for my family". The reporter was stunned and paused before asking why she didn't get a job already then. "Because I didn't have to".

'Because I didn't have to', is the reason most people are on the government tits sucking away our tax dollars. When people are pushed to either work or starve, they'll work. Old people are no exception.

The alternative is to end up like Greece. Greece had a very good pension system... by the standards you are talking about. Doesn't change the fact they are close to having a national default, a massive economic crash, and country wide chaos.... but hey.... at least the elderly were getting their checks... right? So what if the entire nation is flushed down the drain, provided they have good social security. Don't think America is immune. You follow their bad example, and we'll have the same results.

Medicare and War

No no no. This is a leftist talking point, and has absolutely no bearing on reality.

Time to wake up, and grasp the situation. Right now, if there was no military at all, and we didn't spend a single penny on anything other than Social Security and Medicare, we would still have a deficit.

Further, the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare are somewhere around $60 Trillion dollars. Add up the total cost of both wars, and it is not even a fraction of the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare. If we had no military action for the past 10 years, we'd still be heading for bankruptcy, and be more exposed to terrorists than we are today, and still screwing around with a mad dictator in Iraq.

No everything would be just as bad as it is now, only with more international dangers. Everything would be worse, and nothing would be improved.

UHC

Yeah lets build on the awful system we have, and make it worse. Maybe you haven't noticed but all the UHC systems around the world are worse than our current system (prior to Obama). Let's try and improve our system, not make it the worst possible.

 

[Sparkles]

They do work...elderly poverty rates were astronomical before Social Security was passed and the insurance industry was getting to the point they wouldn't cover retirees...except for a very hefty premium most couldn't afford.
Social Security and Elderly Poverty

Before Social security the elderly poverty rate was at 50%. It's closer to under 10% now. It's pretty successful...unles success to you is not paying taxes.

It wasn't Social Security or Medicare that doomed the Soviet Union economically. Social Security is fine...it's been fine. The problem with Medicare is our rising health costs which are ridiculous. We spend almost a fifth of our economy in the healthcare system and it's rising much higher than the rate of inflation. That will be what kills this country...an expensive healthcare system that eats away at consumer spending power.

You really don't get that it's going broke do you. Well... I'm not going to argue with a blind man over what colors are in a rainbow.

 

[hazlnut]

"The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year"


In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year | ZeroHedge



What are your thoughts on this?

I THINK you found an article that supports your POV.

"Entitlement American" is an ignorant talking point. I would just love for RW media to actually explain to middle class teabaggers how they get raped in the hindparts every April 15. Would love a basic economics lesson on primetime explaining economies of scale how the poker game will come to an end when one player controls all the chips (wealth). The new and devolved GOP is setting how to bring USA crashing down. And they want Newt to build them an escape ship to the moon....

 

[Sparkles]

I THINK you found an article that supports your POV.

"Entitlement American" is an ignorant talking point. I would just love for RW media to actually explain to middle class teabaggers how they get raped in the hindparts every April 15. Would love a basic economics lesson on primetime explaining economies of scale how the poker game will come to an end when one player controls all the chips (wealth). The new and devolved GOP is setting how to bring USA crashing down. And they want Newt to build them an escape ship to the moon....

So basically your response to the points being made is....
"Entitlement American" is an ignorant talking point.

That's your big argument. That's your amazing logic at work. This is the top of the line response for the left.

Um... fail.

Try again, or better yet, don't. What waste of post.

 

[iliveonramen]

You really don't get that it's going broke do you. Well... I'm not going to argue with a blind man over what colors are in a rainbow.

Social security is not a major issue. We've known the problem for decades that demographic factors would put a strain on the system. Instead when we were borderline running surpluses....Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts and ruined our fiscal situation. We're in the middle of a recession with stagnant wages so payroll taxes are not as high as a normal functioning economy. This idea that Social Security is unfixible without major changes is false. If anything our situation has worsened due to Republican policies.

Medicare is a problem...but it's a symptom of a much larger problem...excessive medical costs in the United States.

Social security and Medicare is the most barebones social safety net programs in the western world. The government is a much lower % of GDP than any other modern western economy. This beating the drum and yelling that we're the Soviet Union headed for collapse is grossly innacurate and just fear mongering.

 

[Sparkles]

Social security is not a major issue. We've known the problem for decades that demographic factors would put a strain on the system. Instead when we were borderline running surpluses....Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts and ruined our fiscal situation. We're in the middle of a recession with stagnant wages so payroll taxes are not as high as a normal functioning economy. This idea that Social Security is unfixible without major changes is false. If anything our situation has worsened due to Republican policies.

Medicare is a problem...but it's a symptom of a much larger problem...excessive medical costs in the United States.

Social security and Medicare is the most barebones social safety net programs in the western world. The government is a much lower % of GDP than any other modern western economy. This beating the drum and yelling that we're the Soviet Union headed for collapse is grossly innacurate and just fear mongering.

Not an issue? What part of this doesn't sound like a problem to you? SS started out as a 1% tax. It now confiscates 15% of your income. The retirement age was 65, now it's 67, and soon it will be 70 or more. Despite this, it's still going broke.

Social Security Payout to Exceed Revenue This Year - NYTimes.com

When Obama claimed that if the debt ceiling was not raised, that Social Security payments would stop, he wasn't joking. Some people on the right accused him of fear mongering, and trying to stir up old people against Republicans.

Far from it. Right now, as we speak, government has to borrow money to pay out SS benefits, and the deficit is growing. And no, the Bush tax cut would not have prevented this. It only slightly increased the inevitable. The system was heading this way for the past 40 to 50 years. We tried fixing it in the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s, and now we're doing it again. Why? Because a ponzi scheme will always fail eventually.

If anything, Bush tried to give us more options in where our money went, so as to avoid the situation we're in now. But the scum sucking left prevented it. Now the left wants to claim that Bush is the reason for the problem. Just a bunch of lies.

Medicare

Yeah, medicare is a bigger problem, because it is helping cause the problem. Part of the jacked up medical costs are due to Medicare's involvement. We don't have a completely free-market. Private insurance is required to subsidize Medicare. Then you complain costs are too high? It's your system jacking up the costs.

First Medicare lowers the cost of medical care to the people who use it. Lower prices, higher usage. If I hurt my leg, and am faced with high costs, I may seek cheaper treatment. But if Medicare covers it at a low price, then who cares? I'll go to the most expensive place I can. Lower price, higher usage.

But that higher usage comes at a cost. Medicare doesn't cover the full cost of care. So a hospital has to make up that lost revenue somewhere. Of course private insurance has to pick up the tab, which they pass that cost right on to us. Then you want to cry about how expensive health care is, never mind the fact you are causing those high prices.

Social security and Medicare is the most barebones social safety net programs in the western world.

Ah yeah.... And doesn't that tell you something? We have the most barebones system, and we're going broke because of it.

I'll give you a hint. Socialism doesn't work. It never has in the past. It doesn't work in the present. It won't work in the future. It hasn't worked in any country that's tried it, and it won't work for us. You can claim it's a lie, but the number are inescapable. You can drag out, and prolong the damage for however long you wish, but all ponzi schemes fail in the end. America will be no different.

 

[Boo Radley]

Actually it wasn't a tobacco executive. It was the finding of some research. The left usually simply applies inconvenient truths to people they don't like, so as to justify ignoring it.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't say that SS lowers poverty among elderly, because I've been to those people. I ran home delivery medication for several years. People who live off social security are undoubtedly impoverished.

Further, those seniors who choose to work, are better off by far. Plus many choose to not work in order to collect social security, meaning that more elderly are impoverished because of the program.

Lastly, I would suggest that many elderly have chosen to not save for their retirement because they believed social security was there. Thus, the reason some are poor is specifically due to the belief that government would take care of them.

A perfect example of this was welfare reform in the 90s. The media and government, and the leftists all said that reforming welfare would sink millions into poverty. Instead, people got jobs, and were better off after welfare reform.

One specific example, was a news report I watched on my local TV station. The reporter was asking a single mother about being kicked off welfare, and asked her how this would impact her and her children. The lady looked her in the face and said "oh we'll be better off for sure. I'll have more money for my family". The reporter was stunned and paused before asking why she didn't get a job already then. "Because I didn't have to".

'Because I didn't have to', is the reason most people are on the government tits sucking away our tax dollars. When people are pushed to either work or starve, they'll work. Old people are no exception.

The alternative is to end up like Greece. Greece had a very good pension system... by the standards you are talking about. Doesn't change the fact they are close to having a national default, a massive economic crash, and country wide chaos.... but hey.... at least the elderly were getting their checks... right? So what if the entire nation is flushed down the drain, provided they have good social security. Don't think America is immune. You follow their bad example, and we'll have the same results.

You may be right about who siad it, but it doesn't really matter does it? The point was that people dying young is likely cheaper, but not dersirable. Or do you disagree.

And I have worked with the elderly as well, and more than just delivering their meds. They are quite better off than they used to be. Fewer live in real poverty, so there is really no denying that it has made there lives better.

As for working, I do hope to die in the classroom, as I want someone to ask if they can leave after I've passed. Hope to have it recorded so my freinds can have a laugh after I'm gone.

however, there are things that prevent that to some degree. The older you are, the more limited your employment opportunites, and the type of work that can use someone 70 - 80 varies. Sooner or later, we're old and not working, . . . unless of course we die bfore then. And the likelihood that we will have the $6 million my brother-in-law the doctor says we need to retire is unlikely for most. We can plan as a people for that inevitablity, or live with the consequences. It is up to us.

Medicare and War

No no no. This is a leftist talking point, and has absolutely no bearing on reality.

Time to wake up, and grasp the situation. Right now, if there was no military at all, and we didn't spend a single penny on anything other than Social Security and Medicare, we would still have a deficit.

Further, the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare are somewhere around $60 Trillion dollars. Add up the total cost of both wars, and it is not even a fraction of the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare. If we had no military action for the past 10 years, we'd still be heading for bankruptcy, and be more exposed to terrorists than we are today, and still screwing around with a mad dictator in Iraq.

No everything would be just as bad as it is now, only with more international dangers. Everything would be worse, and nothing would be improved.

It's not all or nothing. Never has been. Even if we did away with all of medicare, we'd still ahve a deficit. it works the other way just as well. But you miss the point. I did not call for the end of the military. I called for the expensive misuse of the military. We make choices in spending our money, and while not fighting wrongheaded, expensive, reckless wars wno't fix all our problems, it is one misuse of our money we should have not had to correct.

UHC

Yeah lets build on the awful system we have, and make it worse. Maybe you haven't noticed but all the UHC systems around the world are worse than our current system (prior to Obama). Let's try and improve our system, not make it the worst possible.

fact is, those systems spend less. It is that simple. So, moving to it would be fixing our system.

 

[iliveonramen]

Far from it. Right now, as we speak, government has to borrow money to pay out SS benefits, and the deficit is growing. And no, the Bush tax cut would not have prevented this. It only slightly increased the inevitable. The system was heading this way for the past 40 to 50 years. We tried fixing it in the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s, and now we're doing it again. Why? Because a ponzi scheme will always fail eventually.

You are aware Social Security has run surpluses for decades right? You are aware that the Social Security Administration buys US debt correct? You are aware that article talks about one year of outlays and revenue and not the trillions in surplus we owe the Social Security Administration? The problem is we've cut other sources of revenue for decades so that we depend on that surplus to fund all functions of government. So yes, it's Bush's fault.

Yeah, medicare is a bigger problem, because it is helping cause the problem. Part of the jacked up medical costs are due to Medicare's involvement. We don't have a completely free-market. Private insurance is required to subsidize Medicare. Then you complain costs are too high? It's your system jacking up the costs.

First Medicare lowers the cost of medical care to the people who use it. Lower prices, higher usage. If I hurt my leg, and am faced with high costs, I may seek cheaper treatment. But if Medicare covers it at a low price, then who cares? I'll go to the most expensive place I can. Lower price, higher usage.

But that higher usage comes at a cost. Medicare doesn't cover the full cost of care. So a hospital has to make up that lost revenue somewhere. Of course private insurance has to pick up the tab, which they pass that cost right on to us. Then you want to cry about how expensive health care is, never mind the fact you are causing those high prices.

Honestly these argument are repeated verbatim to the point of exhaustion. No more usage doesn't necessarily mean higher costs. In fact more usage generally means preventive care which can lower costs. No Medicare's price controls are not the problem, total medical costs are increasing at a huge rate, not just private and not just public. If the costs were shifted between public and private that doesn't result in total costs increasing.

At the end of the day any argument is left with this huge gaping whole that doesn't answer...our private insurance sector is the largest portion of our medical system than any comparable economy. We actually exclude 40 million uninsured. Yet we are by far the most expensive country for medical care in the world. Blaming increased accessibility falls flat when we are by no means providing the most access to medical care.

Ah yeah.... And doesn't that tell you something? We have the most barebones system, and we're going broke because of it.

I'll give you a hint. Socialism doesn't work. It never has in the past. It doesn't work in the present. It won't work in the future. It hasn't worked in any country that's tried it, and it won't work for us. You can claim it's a lie, but the number are inescapable. You can drag out, and prolong the damage for however long you wish, but all ponzi schemes fail in the end. America will be no different.

An now the portion of empty rhetoric.

 

[ARealConservative]

You are aware Social Security has run surpluses for decades right?.

You are aware that the Clinton budget surplus was achieved by using the previous social security surplus to pretend we had a balanced budget, right?

 

[liblady]

You are aware that the Clinton budget surplus was achieved by using the previous social security surplus to pretend we had a balanced budget, right?

but bush didn't?

 

[ARealConservative]

but bush didn't?

After the media allowed Clinton to lie about a budget surplus, they then let Bush lie about how that surplus means we pay too much taxes, and he campaigned on giving the money back when running against Gore.

It’s sad the media allows these lies to go out there, but they did. To this day, very few actually challenge the Clinton surplus lie

 

[Boo Radley]

After the media allowed Clinton to lie about a budget surplus, they then let Bush lie about how that surplus means we pay too much taxes, and he campaigned on giving the money back when running against Gore.

It’s sad the media allows these lies to go out there, but they did. To this day, very few actually challenge the Clinton surplus lie

I wonder if the media called people out on lies if that wouldn't intensify the whining about biased media? But I do agree they should all the same.

 

[iliveonramen]

You are aware that the Clinton budget surplus was achieved by using the previous social security surplus to pretend we had a balanced budget, right?

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Boo Radley]

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

However, pointing this out would mean the media is biased, right?

 

[ARealConservative]

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The total national debt went up every single year.

Please explain how total debt can go up with a balanced budget.

09/30/1999 total national debt = $5.656270 trillion
09/29/2000 total national debt = $5.674178 trillion
09/28/2001 total national debt = $5.807463 trillion

 

[iliveonramen]

The total national debt went up every single year.

Please explain how total debt can go up with a balanced budget.

09/30/1999 total national debt = $5.656270 trillion
09/29/2000 total national debt = $5.674178 trillion
09/28/2001 total national debt = $5.807463 trillion

Most likely interest payments to social security which the SSA uses to buy government debt.

 

[ARealConservative]

Most likely interest payments to social security which the SSA uses to buy government debt.

Nope.


The fact check article incorrectly treats Social Security surplus as the only trust fund, when it isn’t. When they talk about “even removing social security from the equation”, they neglect to see that other categories making up this IOU.

It’s frustrating seeing people take a very simple concept and complicate it for political gain. An actual balanced budget would never increase the national debt. It really is that simple.

Here were the various trust fund surpluses in 2000:

Social Security $152.3 billion
Civil Service Retirement Fund $30.9 billion
Federal supplementary medical insurance Trust fund $18.5 billion
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund $15.0 billion
Unemployment Trust Fund $9.0 billion
Military Retirement Fund $8.2 billion
Transportation Trust Funds $3.8 billion
Employee life insurance & retirement $1.8 billion
Other$7.0 billion
TOTAL$246.5 billion