House bans welfare recipients' money from strip clubs, liquor stores

Neomalthusian · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
SS has been so successful, it has a surplus of 2.6 trillion dollars,

In IOUs.

enough for full payments through 2036.

As long as FedGov can borrow more to pay them. Obama and Geithner have both admitted that we need to use debt to cover SS payouts. There's no real "trust fund," Catawba. It's time to accept the reality of the situation.

Now its time to pay back the money borrowed from SS by cutting our excessive military spending and eliminating the tax cuts for the rich.

That doesn't provide us with extra cash. We're already running trillion dollar deficits. There is no money left to pay back borrowed money just by cutting the couple things you dislike and hiking taxes. You have to cut deeper than that.

Gill · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
Yes, you do that.

"Assets grew from about $47 billion at the end of December 1986 to about $2,609 billion ($2.6 trillion) by the end of December 2010."
Social Security Trust Funds

To bad the Social Security Administration's rosy outlook didn't last very long:

Social Security

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

Trustees Report Summary

bennymac5151 · Feb 7, 2012

Food for thought: get rid of federal food stamps because it is unconstitutional.

This is so annoying to me. There will always be those people that abuse welfare state programs at the expense of society. The problem is that the number is growing. It is completely unjust.

Kreton · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
SS has been so successful, it has a surplus of 2.6 trillion dollars, enough for full payments through 2036. The general fund used this surplus to reduce the debt caused by a needless war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy. Now its time to pay back the money borrowed from SS by cutting our excessive military spending and eliminating the tax cuts for the rich.

Now this is just funny right here.

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
In IOUs.

In Treasury Bonds. The safest investment there is. The US has never in its history failed to honor its Treasury Bonds.

As long as FedGov can borrow more to pay them.

There is no need to borrow more to pay them, just eliminate the tax cuts on the rich that prevents the US from paying its debts.

Obama and Geithner have both admitted that we need to use debt to cover SS payouts. There's no real "trust fund," Catawba. It's time to accept the reality of the situation.

The general fund has a debt problem. SS has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus.

That doesn't provide us with extra cash. We're already running trillion dollar deficits. There is no money left to pay back borrowed money just by cutting the couple things you dislike and hiking taxes. You have to cut deeper than that.

Than we have to once again start acting responsible and cut our excessive military spending and tax cuts to the wealthy that created the debt to SS and start paying it back.

When did people start thinking that it wasn't irresponsible to just walk away from your debts???

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

Gill said:
To bad the Social Security Administration's rosy outlook didn't last very long:

Trustees Report Summary

You posted it without reading it?

What does this say from your quoted post above?

"trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036"

Gill · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
In Treasury Bonds. The safest investment there is. The US has never in its history failed to honor its Treasury Bonds.

They are still IOUs.

There is no need to borrow more to pay them, just eliminate the tax cuts on the rich that prevents the US from paying its debts.

If we taxed the "rich" at 100%, it wouldn't come close to paying Obama's blooming debt.

The general fund has a debt problem. SS has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus.

Don't believe the SS Trust Fund Trustees, eh?

Than we have to once again start acting responsible and cut our excessive military spending and tax cuts to the wealthy that created the debt to SS and start paying it back.

When did people start thinking that it wasn't irresponsible to just walk away from your debts???

Tax cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to of SS and Medicare.

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

bennymac5151 said:
Food for thought: get rid of federal food stamps because it is unconstitutional.

This is so annoying to me. There will always be those people that abuse welfare state programs at the expense of society. The problem is that the number is growing. It is completely unjust.

Here's food for thought, pay people enough for full time work so they don't need food stamps.

Gill · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
You posted it without reading it?

What does this say from your quoted post above?

"trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036"

Nope, read every bit of it. Where do you think those funds are coming from ??? The U.S. has to borrow money to pay back the trust fund, so it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

Gill said:
They are still IOUs.

From your source:

"trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036"

liblady · Feb 7, 2012

Gill said:
They are still IOUs.

If we taxed the "rich" at 100%, it wouldn't come close to paying Obama's blooming debt.

Don't believe the SS Trust Fund Trustees, eh?

Tax cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to of SS and Medicare.

and cutting ss and medicare won't pay for the debt either. the solution has to put everything on the table, including taxing the rich. why can't you people ever compromise?

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

Gill said:
Nope, read every bit of it. Where do you think those funds are coming from ??? The U.S. has to borrow money to pay back the trust fund, so it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

That's a general fund problem, not a Social Security problem. And they wouldn't have to borrow money to repay their debt to SS, they can simply eliminate the tax cuts that required them to borrow the money from SS in the first place.

Is the new conservative principle that the US should just start acting irresponsible by walking away from its debts. We've never done that in our history, but the conservatives think that is what the US should start doing?

Gill · Feb 7, 2012

liblady said:
and cutting ss and medicare won't pay for the debt either. the solution has to put everything on the table, including taxing the rich. why can't you people ever compromise?

Please quote my comment that I am unwilling to compromise.

Apology accepted in advance.

Gill · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
That's a general fund problem, not a Social Security problem. And they wouldn't have to borrow money to repay their debt to SS, they can simply eliminate the tax cuts that required them to borrow the money from SS in the first place.

Is the new conservative principle that the US should just start acting irresponsible by walking away from its debts. We've never done that in our history, but the conservatives think that is what the US should start doing?

Really? Since you seem to be an expert on the tax cut, post the amount of money that will be saved by eliminating the Bush tax cuts vs the debt owed to social security.

Don't forget the portion of the Bush tax cuts that went to low income earners.

Where the hell did you dream up the idea that I was advocating walking away from any debt ????

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

Gill said:
Really? Since you seem to be an expert on the tax cut, post the amount of money that will be saved by eliminating the Bush tax cuts vs the debt owed to social security.

Don't forget the portion of the Bush tax cuts that went to low income earners.

Where the hell did you dream up the idea that I was advocating walking away from any debt ????

Since you've lost the debate on the SS Trust Funds, you wish to move onto another subject? Very well, here you go:

Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report

"Tax cuts for America’s top earners are costing everyone, every hour of every day, a new report from the National Priorities Project finds.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107."

Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report

Gill · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
Since you've lost the debate on the SS Trust Funds, you wish to move onto another subject? Very well, here you go:

Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report

"Tax cuts for America’s top earners are costing everyone, every hour of every day, a new report from the National Priorities Project finds.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107."

Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report

I think I've presented more than enough evidence on the SS issue. If you choose not to believe the Congressional Budget Office, the SS trustees, and FactCheck, that's your problem.

Ahh yes, the Huffington-Puffington Post. Can I post a story from Free Republic now ???

Your Huffy article is based on information from the National Priorities Project. Here's a Wike description of them:

The National Priorities Project (NPP) is a think tank and advocacy group that provides research designed to influence U.S. federal spending priorities. Identified as "liberal" and "progressive," the group has been highly critical of U.S. spending on the Iraq War and has attempted to draw attention to how such budget items as military spending and "tax cuts for the richest 10%" could translate into spending on categories such as renewable energy, "public safety officers, schools or health care coverage."

Nuff said.

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

Gill said:
I think I've presented more than enough evidence on the SS issue. If you choose not to believe the Congressional Budget Office, the SS trustees, and FactCheck, that's your problem.

My favorite part of the discovery that you made all on your own and posted that ended the discussion - "trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036"

Ahh yes, the Huffington-Puffington Post. Can I post a story from Free Republic now ???

Look up ad hominem to see what you just did.

Neomalthusian · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
In Treasury Bonds. The safest investment there is. The US has never in its history failed to honor its Treasury Bonds.

How would it honor them? Either taxing us (yet again) or by issuing new debt.

There is no need to borrow more to pay them, just eliminate the tax cuts on the rich that prevents the US from paying its debts.

Even with your same old same old ideas, that doesn't solve the issue. We're still running deficits, so we still need to issue new debts or re-tax.

The general fund has a debt problem. SS has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus.

There's no surplus when it's all debt. When will you get this through your head?

Than we have to once again start acting responsible and cut our excessive military spending and tax cuts to the wealthy that created the debt to SS and start paying it back.

Did you read my post? Read it again. This gets us a little closer but not close enough. We need to go deeper.

When did people start thinking that it wasn't irresponsible to just walk away from your debts???

When they noticed that it gets them re-elected by partisans like you.

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
How would it honor them? Either taxing us (yet again) or by issuing new debt.

How has the US honored its debts in the past?

Even with your same old same old ideas, that doesn't solve the issue. We're still running deficits, so we still need to issue new debts or re-tax.

Than don't you think the responsible thing to do would be to quit the excessive military spending and tax cuts to the rich that created the deficit?

There's no surplus when it's all debt. When will you get this through your head?

If I let you borrow a $1,000 of mine, and you blow it and most of your own money on drugs, am I the one responsible because you can't pay your bills.

That is exactly the case you are trying to make here and there is just no logic with your position.

Kreton · Feb 7, 2012

liblady said:
and cutting ss and medicare won't pay for the debt either. the solution has to put everything on the table, including taxing the rich. why can't you people ever compromise?

It's not just one side who doesn't compromise. It is politicians in general.

Neomalthusian · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
How has the US honored its debts in the past?

As I stated.

Than don't you think the responsible thing to do would be to quit the excessive military spending and tax cuts to the rich that created the deficit?

We could do that, but it doesn't result in cash on hand, because our deficits are already too deep. It just makes the year's deficit smaller, but it does not replace the squandered surplus.

If I let you borrow a $1,000 of mine, and you blow it and most of your own money on drugs, am I the one responsible because you can't pay your bills.

That is exactly the case you are trying to make here and there is just no logic with your position.

When the government spends the SS surplus and says "thanks, we owe ya," what that really means is "you owe ya.". Government only "pays us back" by taking it from us (again) first. Not such a good deal.

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
As I stated.

Yep, same as we have throughout our history!

We could do that, but it doesn't result in cash on hand, because our deficits are already too deep. It just makes the year's deficit smaller, but it does not replace the squandered surplus.

Nope, not at all, just eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy will cover their debt to SS.

When the government spends the SS surplus and says "thanks, we owe ya," what that really means is "you owe ya.". Government only "pays us back" by taking it from us (again) first. Not such a good deal.

Are you one of the 1% that averaged a $66,000 tax break annually from the Bush Tax cuts for the last 10 years, that necessitated the government borrowing from SS? If not, you would not be affected much by the elimination of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy that created the debt to SS.

And please answer this question that you did not answer before, because this gets to the heart of the issue:

If I let you borrow a $1,000 of mine, and you blow it and most of your own money on drugs, am I the one responsible because you can't pay your bills?

Catawba · Feb 7, 2012

muciti said:
It's not just one side who doesn't compromise. It is politicians in general.

No the Democrats have said they are willing to both cut spending and increase taxes. The GOP will only agree to one but not the other, no compromise.

Kreton · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
No the Democrats have said they are willing to both cut spending and increase taxes. The GOP will only agree to one but not the other, no compromise.

Both sides say they are willing and neither side actually does it. It's a bunch of bi-partisan finger pointing bs. Your just gullible enough to buy into it. The democrats have you right where they want you. Blindly believing in everything they do and always blaming the other side.

American politics at its finest.

Neomalthusian · Feb 7, 2012

Catawba said:
Yep, same as we have throughout our history!

You're not getting it. Our taxes created the surplus, which was squandered. We would have to be taxed AGAIN to replace it. The money doesn't come from anywhere else but us.

Nope, not at all, just eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy will cover their debt to SS.

My god you are so confused.

Doing those things reduces the deficit, but does not replace the SS surplus that no longer exists.

Are you one of the 1% that averaged a $66,000 tax break annually from the Bush Tax cuts for the last 10 years, that necessitated the government borrowing from SS?

Nothing necessitated robbing SS, are you kidding me?

If not, you would not be affected much by the elimination of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy that created the debt to SS.

You are unabashedly making **** up. This is absurd.

And please answer this question that you did not answer before, because this gets to the heart of the issue:

If I let you borrow a $1,000 of mine, and you blow it and most of your own money on drugs, am I the one responsible because you can't pay your bills?

In the case of a private contract, no, I am. But if "government owes us" $1000, it charges it to OUR collective credit card. We have to pay ourselves back when government squanders our money.

Please tell me you can grasp this simple simple concept.

House bans welfare recipients' money from strip clubs, liquor stores

New member

Doesn't know

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

pirate lover

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Doesn't know

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Doesn't know