Debt ceiling: House GOP gets lowdown on fallout

Henrin · Sep 4, 2011

Conservative said:
by stealing from SS and replacing it with IOU's. try to keep up. Obama must like those IOU's because he continues to create much more of them.

Thank you for saying it.

pbrauer · Sep 4, 2011

Conservative said:
What he was supposed to do is what anyone is supposed to do with future obligations, put the money aside and have it for when they need it. I find it quite interesting that liberals like you don't understand SS but more importantly don't seem to care that your money that you "contributed" was spent on something other than SS. You don't seem to understand that total debt is the issue, public debt PLUS Intergovt. holding debt= total debt. Too bad because a lot of people like you are in positions of authority.

Here's what you seem not to understand:

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Trust Fund FAQs

Conservative · Sep 4, 2011

pbrauer said:
Here's what you seem not to understand:

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Trust Fund FAQs

Do you know what that means? The Federal Govt. has to come up with the funds to pay for those IOU's. How are they going to do that? Think, Pb, think.

haymarket · Sep 4, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you know what that means? The Federal Govt. has to come up with the funds to pay for those IOU's. How are they going to do that? Think, Pb, think.

Do you not know how the government raises revenues? That is quite surprising for a man of your age.

pbrauer · Sep 4, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you know what that means? The Federal Govt. has to come up with the funds to pay for those IOU's. How are they going to do that? Think, Pb, think.

Since the revenue from payroll taxes is approximately equal to income from individual income taxes, I don't see that being much of a problem.

Conservative · Sep 5, 2011

haymarket said:
Do you not know how the government raises revenues? That is quite surprising for a man of your age.

No idea, why don't you tell me? Like all liberals you want the govt. to raise taxes to reward the govt. for such great stewardship of our economy. The American people should haven't to pay for the politicians waste of money. Cut the damn spending which will grow the economy thus growing govt. revenue without tax increases. How much are the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans paying in taxes? Barack Obama is incompetent and doesn't deserve another dime nor does the Democrat Party.

Conservative · Sep 5, 2011

pbrauer said:
Since the revenue from payroll taxes is approximately equal to income from individual income taxes, I don't see that being much of a problem.

Of course you don't because you treat them as equal. Payroll taxes are supposed to fund future obligations, income taxes fund current expenses. You can cut the expenses but you cannot cut future obligations.

haymarket · Sep 5, 2011

It appears that you have serious problems with the governmental system of the USA. We already have the long established precedent that FICA revenues can indeed be mixed with revenues from other taxation sources. They have been used for a very long time now when there are surpluses from FICA. That line has already been crossed and is settled custom and settled in the law. If in the future, it becomes necessary to use general taxation revenues to support a shortfall in FICA revenues as used for Social Security payments - in other words to pay off the treasury notes - there is absolutely no barrier to that and it can be done.

Or course, this has already been explained by several people in several threads.

And of course, this only becomes a problem to those who ideologically are opposed to Social Security and will mount any semantic challenge to the program and do anything they can to subvert the system for operating to the benefit of the American people.

katsung47 · Sep 18, 2011

Conservative said:
That is a lie, there was no surplus as the Treasury shows, again you buy what you are told without verifying the rhetoric. Public debt plus intergovt. holding deficits=total debt. Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion debt and left it at 5.7 trillion thus no surplus.

Debt by year

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

.

Surplus, that's what clinton left for Bush.

Show me the money: What happened to Bill Clinton's budget surplus?
04:00 AM PT, Oct 15 2008

When President Clinton left office, the federal budget was showing a $127-billion surplus.

The books are closed on fiscal 2008. The surplus the current President Bush inherited has turned into a record deficit: $455 billion.

Show me the money: What happened to Bill Clinton's budget surplus? | Countdown to Crawford | Los Angeles Times

Conservative said:
2

9/11 Commission disagrees with you, your point?

.

911 commission was set up by government to defend itself. Even 911 commission admit the cover up of 911.

9

/11 After A Decade: Have We Learned Anything?

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The chairman, vice chairman, and senior legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission wrote books partially disassociating themselves from the commission’s report. They said that the Bush administration put obstacles in their path, that information was withheld from them, that President Bush agreed to testify only if he was chaperoned by Vice President Cheney and neither were put under oath, that Pentagon and FAA officials lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for investigation for obstruction of justice.

In their book, the chairman and vice chairman, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail.” Senior counsel John Farmer, Jr., wrote that the US government made “a decision not to tell the truth about what happened,” and that the NORAD “tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public.” Kean said, “We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.”

Most of the questions from the 9/11 families were not answered. Important witnesses were not called. The commission only heard from those who supported the government’s account. The commission was a controlled political operation, not an investigation of events and evidence. Its membership consisted of former politicians. No knowledgeable experts were appointed to the commission.

One member of the 9/11 Commission, former Senator Max Cleland, responded to the constraints placed on the commission by the White House: “If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.” Cleland resigned rather than have his integrity compromised.

9/11 After A Decade: Have We Learned Anything?

Conservative · Sep 18, 2011

katsung47;1059805185]Surplus, that's what clinton left for Bush.

Here we go again, the lies about the Clinton surplus. Liberals keep perpetuating that lies as if it has any affect today. Public debt PLUS intergovt. holding deficit = TOTAL debt and when you take from Intergovt holdings and apply it to public debt you don't create a surplus. Wish liberals would wake up and understand that

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

911 commission was set up by government to defend itself. Even 911 commission admit the cover up of 911.

Looks like someone else here with Bush derangement syndrome

The Barbarian · Sep 19, 2011

haymarket said:
It appears that you have serious problems with the governmental system of the USA. We already have the long established precedent that FICA revenues can indeed be mixed with revenues from other taxation sources. They have been used for a very long time now when there are surpluses from FICA. That line has already been crossed and is settled custom and settled in the law. If in the future, it becomes necessary to use general taxation revenues to support a shortfall in FICA revenues as used for Social Security payments - in other words to pay off the treasury notes - there is absolutely no barrier to that and it can be done.

Or course, this has already been explained by several people in several threads.

And of course, this only becomes a problem to those who ideologically are opposed to Social Security and will mount any semantic challenge to the program and do anything they can to subvert the system for operating to the benefit of the American people.

Okay .. hey I can understand that post …. but I do have a couple of questions, you say we take from the general fund to pay SS back correct ? Is this the same general fund that we are presently running at a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit ??? If we take money from the general fund to pay off these treasury notes, what other programs are going to take cuts for this? Or do we just add this to our already bloated deficit spending?

Just curious is all .

haymarket · Sep 20, 2011

The Barbarian said:
Okay .. hey I can understand that post …. but I do have a couple of questions, you say we take from the general fund to pay SS back correct ? Is this the same general fund that we are presently running at a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit ??? If we take money from the general fund to pay off these treasury notes, what other programs are going to take cuts for this? Or do we just add this to our already bloated deficit spending?

Just curious is all .

we will obviously have to do two things in combination with each other: since a budget has only two sides, INCOME and EXPENDITURES, we deal with both sides.

Will cuts in future programs have to be made? If we do not drastically increase revenues, yes. What do we cut? I would think the first rule is to pay for what we have already obligated ourselves for with the full faith and credit of the USA before we take on any new spending.