Current US Federal Budget Deficit

[Conservative]

Why do you continue to repeat a statement that has no real meaning? It's weird.



Yes it was. Are you really that ignorant? It's why they unified the budget in the first place.... :lamo

My ignorance pales in comparison to yours and your biased, partisan bull****.

 

[Conservative]

Why do you continue to repeat a statement that has no real meaning? It's weird.



Yes it was. Are you really that ignorant? It's why they unified the budget in the first place.... :lamo

Oh, by the way when was the unified budget created and why??

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming as that was never the intent when SS and Medicare were created. LBJ and Democrats saw a way to lower the reported deficit, borrow the money, replace it with IOU's that have to be funded by cash. Post where FDR created a program as you are describing?? Total ignorance and big gov't liberals have created the belief that FIT is there to fund the shortfall that has never been replaced. You want to replace the SS and Medicare IOU's with cash, do it by FICA taxes as well as something like another created tax to fund the shortfall. Stop blaming tax cuts for the deficit as tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the 2018 deficit but you are too bullheaded and immature to admit it.

What should have happened to the surplus in FICA funding over the last 35 years or so?

 

[Conservative]

I've said nothing of the sort. You've gone delusional again.



You are more than welcome to build your own argument.



There was one identity for the federal deficit and another identity that sums up your foolish argument. The values are irrelevant. My point remains... Republicans failed at addressing debt, spending, and deficits. You're just trying (and failing) to make excuses for failure.

Your post showing the status of Medicare and SS showed 70+billion dollars, what is your number?

 

[Kushinator]

that was never the intent when SS and Medicare were created.

Social Security or Medicare were never intended to run surpluses... they were designed as PAYGO entities. Actuaries quickly observed there would be a massive shortfall during the baby-boom retirement, and so legislation was enacted that raised revenues well in excess of current cash-flow needs to build a long term fund. As the baby boomers retire, the trust fund will be drawn down until exhaustion and the system will once again act as PAYGO.

 

[Conservative]

What should have happened to the surplus in FICA funding over the last 35 years or so?

What was done with it from inception to the late 60's? The Congress got its hands on the money, spent it on the Vietnam War never paid it back but continued to make the monthly payments as the IOU's increased. I would have created another line item in the Trust find for an accrued debt to give the people a complete picture of the abuse.

 

[Kushinator]

Your post showing the status of Medicare and SS showed 70+billion dollars, what is your number?

If you have something to add, by all means... nobody is stopping you.

 

[Conservative]

Social Security or Medicare were never intended to run surpluses... they were designed as PAYGO entities. Actuaries quickly observed there would be a massive shortfall during the baby-boom retirement, and so legislation was enacted that raised revenues well in excess of current cash-flow needs to build a long term fund. As the baby boomers retire, the trust fund will be drawn down until exhaustion and the system will once again act as PAYGO.

SS was never intended to be paid either but that is another story. Tell us all exactly why FIT should be used to fund the IOU's in SS when they come due? It never was intended to be borrowed either and then never paid back.

 

[Conservative]

If you have something to add, by all means... nobody is stopping you.

NO, post 584 is quite to the point, the amount collected for 2018 is less than the amount paid out in 2018 leaving a draw on those IOU's that had to be funded.

 

[Kushinator]

What was done with it from inception to the late 60's?

It operated primarily as PAYGO. There was a Trust Fund, but at that time Social Security represented only a fraction of total government revenue, and hence the Trust fund was only a fraction of the entire Federal Budget.

The Congress got its hands on the money, spent it on the Vietnam War never paid it back but continued to make the monthly payments as the IOU's increased.

This type of nonsense isn't new. You had ignorant partisan hacks, much like yourself, who were challenged with government finance. Back in 1939, a fellow named John T. Flynn made the same argument pertaining to twin taxation, because budget deficits were quite new and relatively small compared to the overall economy. It was his argument that government would need to tax workers to pay retirees and subsequently tax the entire country to pay the interest payments for the Trust Fund. In 1957, the Social Security advisory board addressed this partisan nonsense:

One of the oldest and most persistent criticisms of the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund is that its investments in Federal securities involve double taxation for social security, once in the payment of social security contributions and a second time in the payment of taxes to pay interest on and to redeem the securities held by the trust find.

Response:

Contributions are levied in the form of taxes to finance the old-age and survivors insurance and disability insurance programs, and these contributions are appropriated to the social security trust funds.

To cover expenditures for purposes duly authorized by Congress, such as armaments and highway construction, the Federal Government from time to time instead of raising additional taxes borrows money, some of it from the trust funds. When taxes are levied to repay these Federal borrowings from the trust funds and other investors, these taxes will be levied to meet the cost of the armaments, highway construction, and the other objects for which the money was borrowed. To hold otherwise would mean that taxes will never have to be levied to pay the full cost of the materials and services that the Government purchased with borrowed money.

People are taxed for social security when they pay their contributions under the program. Taxes paid to redeem the Federal securities held by the trust funds are paid for the purposes for.which the money was borrowed from the trust funds, and not for social security.

Similarly, the interest the Government pays on the Federal securities held by the trust funds are payments made for purposes other than social security. Congress has recognized that it would be inequitable to contributors under the social security programs if the Treasury borrowed money from the trust funds without paying interest on these borrowings just as it would have to do if the money was borrowed from others. The taxes raised to pay this interest are levied for the purposes for which the money was borrowed and not for social security.

The Government must pay interest on all the public debt whether or not part of it is held by the trust funds. Payment of interest to the trust funds therefore does not increase the cost of servicing the debt. On the other hand, the interest received by the trust funds on their investments supplements their receipts from contributions and results eventually in lower contributions for social security than would be necessary if no interest were received by the funds. In this way, the payment of interest on securities held by the trust funds has the effect of decreasing, rather than increasing, the taxes people eventually must pay for social security.

Source: Social Security Administration

:lol:

 

[Kushinator]

NO, post 584 is quite to the point, the amount collected for 2018 is less than the amount paid out in 2018 leaving a draw on those IOU's that had to be funded.

You're once again failing to account for taxes on benefits and interest received.

 

[Kushinator]

Tell us all exactly why FIT should be used to fund the IOU's in SS when they come due?

FIT won't fund the draw down. As explained on multiple occasions, the composition of intergovernmental holdings will shift to regular old public debt. Are you so naive as to reject the notion that the Trust Fund should not accrue interest for lending? Or are you so innocent to finance that you believe the government has a big bank account to house excess funds?

Either way... :lamo

 

[Kushinator]

My ignorance pales in comparison to yours and your biased, partisan bull****.

You don't add anything of value to these discussions, other than showing future readers of these exchanges what ignorant partisanship looks like.

 

[Vadinho]

What should have happened to the surplus in FICA funding over the last 35 years or so?

Apparently he believes in Al Gore's lockbox theory which would demand that excesses in receipts over expenses within the SS funds over time be set aside in an untouchable account that bears no interest. But that is not what the governments since LBJ did with these excess reserves. Let us state once and for all, the US government can never, ever run out of money it creates itself. Never. So his point is moot, it is nothing but partisan gibberish meant only to support a movement to cut SS benefits. Lets call it what it is and be done with it.

 

[Conservative]

It operated primarily as PAYGO. There was a Trust Fund, but at that time Social Security represented only a fraction of total government revenue, and hence the Trust fund was only a fraction of the entire Federal Budget.



This type of nonsense isn't new. You had ignorant partisan hacks, much like yourself, who were challenged with government finance. Back in 1939, a fellow named John T. Flynn made the same argument pertaining to twin taxation, because budget deficits were quite new and relatively small compared to the overall economy. It was his argument that government would need to tax workers to pay retirees and subsequently tax the entire country to pay the interest payments for the Trust Fund. In 1957, the Social Security advisory board addressed this partisan nonsense:



Response:

Source: Social Security Administration

:lol:

Thank you now what does that have to do with the budget deficit thread topic and what part of the 2018 was reported to having to do with SS and Medicare

 

[Conservative]

You're once again failing to account for taxes on benefits and interest received.

You are failing to address the deficit and what the line items show. You also posted a formula for the deficits again not putting the numbers into that formula, let me again do that for you

Discretionary budget 1.28 trillion in 2018 actually spent MINUS FIT 1.66 trillion and 160 billion in corporate revenue=???? You do the math?

 

[Conservative]

FIT won't fund the draw down. As explained on multiple occasions, the composition of intergovernmental holdings will shift to regular old public debt. Are you so naive as to reject the notion that the Trust Fund should not accrue interest for lending? Or are you so innocent to finance that you believe the government has a big bank account to house excess funds?

Either way... :lamo

Of course it won't as that was never the intent of FIT but that is what you and the radicals want? Higher taxes on the rich and blaming FIT cuts for the deficits, that is a lie!!!

 

[Conservative]

Apparently he believes in Al Gore's lockbox theory which would demand that excesses in receipts over expenses within the SS funds over time be set aside in an untouchable account that bears no interest. But that is not what the governments since LBJ did with these excess reserves. Let us state once and for all, the US government can never, ever run out of money it creates itself. Never. So his point is moot, it is nothing but partisan gibberish meant only to support a movement to cut SS benefits. Lets call it what it is and be done with it.

Apparently you have no concern about your FICA taxes being borrowed and then repaid with someone else's federal income taxes which never was the intent of FIT. What happened to the money contributed to SS and Medicare before the unified budget?

 

[Kushinator]

You are failing to address the deficit and what the line items show.

Nope. I just have an understanding of accounting and little patience for ignorant partisan hacks.

 

[Kushinator]

Of course it won't as that was never the intent of FIT but that is what you and the radicals want? Higher taxes on the rich and blaming FIT cuts for the deficits, that is a lie!!!

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.....

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

You are failing to address the deficit and what the line items show. You also posted a formula for the deficits again not putting the numbers into that formula, let me again do that for you

Discretionary budget 1.28 trillion in 2018 actually spent MINUS FIT 1.66 trillion and 160 billion in corporate revenue=???? You do the math?

Have you calculated the interest payments, and Medicare Part B, C and D into your equation.

 

[Kushinator]

Apparently you have no concern about your FICA taxes being borrowed and then repaid with someone else's federal income taxes which never was the intent of FIT.

The debt instruments sold or issued by the U.S. Treasury are backed in full faith and credit of the Federal Government.

What happened to the money contributed to SS and Medicare before the unified budget?

The same exact ****ing thing.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR="class: topPad1"]
[TH="class: stub0, align: left"]Income and outgo in year prior to report year (in billions)[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub1, align: left"]Income[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub3, align: left"]Total[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]$997[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$1,003[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub2, align: left"]Social Security contributions a[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]$874[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$885[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub2, bgcolor: #ECFAFF, align: left"]Income taxes on benefits[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ECFAFF, align: right"]$38[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ECFAFF, align: right"]$35[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub2, align: left"]Interest[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]$85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$83[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub1, align: left"]Outgo[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub3, align: left"]Total[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]$952[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$1,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub2, align: left"]Benefit payments b[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]$946[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$994[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub2, align: left"]Administration[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]$6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: stub1, align: left"]Net increase in assets[/TH]
[TD="align: right"]$44[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$3[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Summary: Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds


SS for 2018 was fully funded and did not use FIT to fund its operations

 

[Kushinator]

Thank you now what does that have to do with the budget deficit thread topic and what part of the 2018 was reported to having to do with SS and Medicare

It addresses your mindless obsession with FIT, discretionary income, and the belief that Trust Funds don't deserve to be paid interest for lending to the U.S. government.

 

[Conservative]

Have you calculated the interest payments, and Medicare Part B, C and D into your equation.

I took the Treasury report, this thread is about the deficit and the blame on Trump and the FIT cuts, do you support the belief that FIT cuts caused the deficits? FIT was never intended to fund SS and Medicare and yet when you look at the 2018 budget deficit you see over 70 billion dollars attributed to SS and Medicare and another 60 billion associated with the debt service increases due to the 4 interest rate hikes in 2018 and 3 in 2017. None of this deficit increase had anything to do with the FIT cuts or Donald Trump