On Obama’s threats, and the ‘guarantee’ of Social Security
What really ought to scare Grandma? How about that President Obama has made it clear that her Social Security is “guaranteed” only if those in Washington feel like paying up?
From an editorial in Investors Business Daily:
Obama beat everyone … with his scaremongering claim that Social Security checks are at risk if he doesn’t get his way on the debt ceiling. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on Aug. 3 if we haven’t resolved this issue,” he told CBS News, “because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
Wait! What happened to Social Security’s “guarantee”? You know, the iron-clad assurance of Social Security benefits in exchange for paying into the program your whole working life? It’s something Democrats constantly talk about, particularly when attacking Republicans who propose privatizing the program.
As Nancy Pelosi once put it: “Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits, and Democrats will fight to make sure that Republicans do not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble.”
The AFL-CIO warned in 2005 about “President Bush’s plan to replace Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with risky private accounts.” The AARP describes Social Security as “the guaranteed part of your retirement plan.” Etc., etc.
Turns out, this “guarantee” is a lie.
This is an excellent point that I touched on when Obama and the lame-duck Congress agreed last December to a one-year cut in the federal payroll tax (you know, the last time Obama called Republicans “hostage takers”). The cord between payroll taxes and Social Security benefits is being severed ever more.
If your payroll taxes truly entitle you to Social Security payments when you retire, then how could Obama withhold those payments from retirees now? Even if you understand that today’s workers pay for today’s retirees, but believe the politicians’ assurances that excess payments are safely ensconced in a trust fund, then you might wonder how Obama could avoid making Social Security payments when payroll taxes are still coming in and there’s all that trust fund money to make up the difference. (In fact, the politicians have already spent almost all of the trust fund money, and would have to use new tax revenues to pay back the trust fund.)
What’s more, Reuters’ James Pethokoukis earlier this week posted a chart demonstrating that projected tax receipts through the month of August would be enough to cover all interest payments on the debt, Social Security payments, Medicare payments, “essential” defense spending about about $50 billion of “other” for the month. As I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be a price, maybe too steep a price, to pay for failing to raise the debt ceiling — but it does mean there will be “the money in the coffers” to keep up Social Security payments. As he does too often, Obama is using a patently false example to make what otherwise is a defensible point.
Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program.
So, which is it?
And are you still so sure that giving individuals more control over their own retirement funds is such a bad thing?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
193 comments Add your comment
Dave R.
July 14th, 2011
12:55 pm
“Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program.
So, which is it?”
I vote for BOTH, Kyle!
Dave R.
July 14th, 2011
1:00 pm
But remember, I come from the state where the term “Vote early, vote often” was first coined.
affableman
July 14th, 2011
1:14 pm
Creditors have to come first otherwise the dollar will quickly become worthless. It’s that simple.
All Obama was doing is stating the truth. He can keep up payments to seniors while the dollar collapses and we get hyperinflation because we import so much stuff or he can make payments to creditors to try to hold the dollar’s value for as long as possible. It’s a no brainer. It’s not scare tactics, it’s reality. Something the Republicans want no part in anymore.
Used to be a Republican until they lost their minds.
that's goofy
July 14th, 2011
1:18 pm
I was educated in a public school so forgive me if I am not up on “facts”.
Legislative branch controls money – not Executive. Therefore the President cannot withhold checks. I don’t see a quote that says he will withhold them. I read that he is implying that if we default we won’t be able to cover the checks.
IRIA MATTHEWS
July 14th, 2011
1:19 pm
If Americans think we have problems now just wait for the ss checks to fail for one month. everyone in this counrty will be adversrly affected. the nursing home, the hospitals,the banks,the private medical professionals,the utility companys,loan companys,drug companies,pharmacies, walmart,kmart, veternarians, everyone. talk about disaster, we will have to come up with a stronger word to describe it !!!!
Laura
July 14th, 2011
1:23 pm
Time that we all stop paying into SS. If the money won’t be there when we need it then why are we giving it to the govt? So they can give it to illegals and foreign countries? Time to start an uprising to end the Ponzi Scheme! Keep in mind that if SS checks do not go out that will have been Obama’s choice. But then you didn’t really think that he liked Americans did you?
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
1:28 pm
affable: The idea that it’s interest payments or SS benefits is one of those “false choices” Obama likes to accuse other people of offering up. Like I said, that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. But it’s simply not true that there would not be money to pay SS benefits. It’s a scare tactic at a particular demographic, plain and simple.
goofy: It’s my understanding that it would be up to the Treasury to prioritize outlays — that’s what the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration suggested in testimony to Congress yesterday — but we haven’t been down this road before. And as for his implication, that’s my point: It’s not true, or at least it doesn’t have to be true…his administration would be the ones making such a choice.
Carlosgvv
July 14th, 2011
1:32 pm
Over 50 million people are on Social Security and other benefits. This is a large enough voting bloc to unseat every politician now in office. I’m sure this is not lost on our politicians and they will find a way to keep those SS checks coming.
jconservative
July 14th, 2011
1:39 pm
As I recall Bill Clinton said the same when he was president and it worked then. I suspect it will work now.
But now that McConnell is on board for a “guaranteed” increase in the debt ceiling it is just a matter of “when” not “if”.
As I keep saying, it is the responsibility of Congress to see that the US government has the money to pay its debts, not the Executive Branch. So Congress will do their job or not do their job. The president’s hands are tied until Congress does something or nothing.
So why is every one focused on the White House? Because of the 2012 elections!
EM
July 14th, 2011
1:50 pm
Obama and his demons are playing all of us for fools again. Just like, $800 Billion Stim Package, (that I can distribute to my Buddies) will cure our economy.
OR How ’bout We Must Pass The Healthcare Bill to See What Is In It!!!!!!!!!!
OR How ’bout if you don’t give me more money to give to my voters, grandma will starve and our military will not be paid. Give ME A BREAK, how stupid to they think we are. I can see how people get into CULTS….If The Koolaid Drinkers Will Vote for and Follow This Lost List of LIES, then we are in much more trouble than I thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
karen
July 14th, 2011
1:52 pm
Let the impeachment begin! Tired of this bozo president and his dictatorship ways.
TruthBe
July 14th, 2011
1:56 pm
First of all the Federal Government collected enough money to pay the mortgage payment and the SS checks. Comrade Obama an his partners in crime the democrats are playing nothing but politics with the lives of the American People. In other words FORCING them to do what he says or else. We need to cut ALL spending both Federal and State. Government has become to big and abusive for our own good. Big Brother Government is the enemy of the American People. Obama and his Master Soros are the Captains of this corrupt sinking ship. Wake Up People and vote this LIAR in-Chief Obama out of office before it’s too late.
Ryan
July 14th, 2011
1:56 pm
What further evidence does the American people need to see to fully comprehend that it’s time to scrap these leaders and start all over?
ITS BUSH'S FAULT
July 14th, 2011
1:56 pm
To all you short term memory folks , remeber you supported bush.lol
Jed
July 14th, 2011
1:59 pm
Kyle, you totally read the statement wrong. Obama did not say he would withhold ss checks but that could be a consequence of not raising the debt ceiling. The republican clowns are not offering one single bargaining point. Obama has asked for a discussion on entitlement programs but no the party of no cares more about politics, big corporations, tax loop holes, perserving the tax cuts for the rich. Keeping Obama from being reelected and killing the middle class, seniors, and poor is the republicans objective. They are so ignorant one would think they went to public school in Georgia.
PsedoTurtle
July 14th, 2011
2:00 pm
Obama does not have the right to amend or terminate SS benefits under current law, only congress has that right, and according to the latest Supreme Court rulings, Social Security recipients have a PROPERTY RIGHT to their benefits, and therefore they cannot simply be taken away by congress at its whim as most commentators keep repeating, which is completely wrong. Below is an excerpt from the latest Supreme Court decision. Decide for yourself.
POWELL, J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
424 U.S. 319
Mathews v. Eldridge
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 74-204 Argued: October 6, 1975 — Decided: February 24, 1976
MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that, prior to the termination of Social Security disability benefit payments, the recipient be afforded an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.
…………..
III
A
Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of “liberty” or “property” interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary does not contend that procedural due process is inapplicable to terminations of Social Security disability benefits. He recognizes, as has been implicit in our prior decisions, e.g., Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 80-81 (1971); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401-402 (1971); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611 (1960), that the interest of an individual in continued receipt of these benefits is a statutorily created “property” interest protected by the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 166 (POWELL, J., concurring in part) (1974); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-578 (1972); Bell v Burson, 402 U.S. at 539; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. at 261-262. Rather, the Secretary contends that the existing administrative procedures, detailed below, provide all the process [p333] that is constitutionally due before a recipient can be deprived of that interest.
This Court consistently has held that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557-558 (1974). See, e.g., Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 596-597 (1931). See also Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 124-125 (1889).
The right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.
No Longer Repblican
July 14th, 2011
2:03 pm
I was going to post something intelligent about how it is time to stop all the game playing on both sides, but this stupid article by Wingfield typifies the stupidity of so many on the right. Kyle you need to go work for a media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch and not one that does legitimate news coverage. I hear Fox is still passing out the Kool aid.
radiohead
July 14th, 2011
2:04 pm
Everything Obama says now is calculated to assure his re-election. Instead of being honest about the economy he’ll say whatever it takes to get the most votes. His policies do not work, in particular his new Obamacare mandates, and will bankrupt the country. We need to get him out of there before he “fundamentally changes America” as he promised.
Jimmy62
July 14th, 2011
2:06 pm
Affableman: Any hyperinflation is fully at the feet of Obama and the Fed, who are now looking in to diluting our currency even more. They should be in jail for literally stealing value from my bank account, it’s out and out theft. In o way is hyperinflation the fault of Republicans trying to keep our country from collapsing under its own debt.
TNT Irish65
July 14th, 2011
2:09 pm
So many errors on the facts, it’s like watching germs multiply in a petri dish! The combination of immaturity and a mind closed to opposing facts is too much to correct in a book, let alone a comment.
JDW
July 14th, 2011
2:12 pm
Frankly Kyle I believe the only person struggling with being truthful is a certain “conservative” columnist…
Let’s take your first unfounded statement… “Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk” The actual quote was “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,”
Now what part of that are you struggling with…how could anyone including James Pethokoukis say anything else? If the Ceiling is not raised no one knows how much money will be available on Aug 3. It might be enough it might not. If fact if you would take the time to read beyond the chart in your reference you would find this very point is made in the Q&A…
“Q: What happens on August 3 if the debt limit is not increased?
A: … Using August 2010 spending and receipts as a proxy, the Treasury will probably take in $5-$10 bn in revenue on August 3, leaving insufficient revenues to make Social Security payments partly unfunded even if all other spending is deferred. Since the Treasury has carried a minimum cash balance of about $20 bn since 2009, and currently carries a balance of $74 bn, Social Security payments might still be made by drawing down the Treasury’s cash balance.”
That statement is full of guesses and suppositions and the conclusion is there MIGHT be enough money…only a moron would guarantee that the payments could be made at this point. If the Republicans can’t seem to face facts it is the Presidents job to point that out which he did. He never said the payments would not be made nor did he say they would never be made, nor did he say, you insinuate, that the people that have paid into the program are no longer entitled to payment.
Now moving on to your next bit of hyperbole, “he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program.”
It is no secret that Social Security revenues are not segregated from general tax revenues and that the assets are not in a separate account (wrongly IMO but it is what it is). In effect those assets have been borrowed by a generation of REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRATIC politicians.
Assuming the US Government continues to pay its debts Social Security as a program is certainly on rock solid ground. Should the US Government default on its obligations then Social Security will be in the same shape as the rest of the creditors…waiting for payment.
Kyle, I give this column a rating of “Pants On Fire”
forgotten citizen
July 14th, 2011
2:12 pm
IF ANYONE’S checks should stop…it should be all of our elected officials, From presidents, to Congress, etc etc..we could save a boat load of money right there….they need to look at the Medicare system..there are a bunch of free loaders that claim to be disabled sucking it dry…or better yet let them have the same insurance and retirement plan as rest of us…bet they would fix that right away
Nomobama
July 14th, 2011
2:13 pm
With each passing day, it is becoming more and more clear just how bad obama is as president. I hiped he would do good for our country, but his policies are heck bent on turning us into greece, italy or spain…in other words a bassackwards socialist state heading toward a crashed currency and bankruptcy.
BlahBlahBlah
July 14th, 2011
2:13 pm
Here’s your problem with August – projected receipts come relatively evenly through the month.
But a big pile of checks (those who started drawing prior to 1998, I think) have to go out on August 3. I’ve seen no guarantees enough $$$ will be there.
Wingfield da Turd
July 14th, 2011
2:14 pm
Wingfield, you have a very difficult time calling president Obama “the President”! You prefer to call him OBAMA, simply because you cannot muster the respect of calling him “the President”.
What a turd…
No Longer Repblican
July 14th, 2011
2:21 pm
I applaud President Obama for not giving in to the idiots in Congress this time. Last year he caved on the tax cuts for the rich. I’m hoping he stands his ground for good this time. If the country defaults it will be a huge disaster economically – and it will sit on the backs of the Tea Part morons.
Stinger
July 14th, 2011
2:24 pm
The republicans better not give in on this one..do not raise that debt ceiling..if they do…I too am no longer republican.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
July 14th, 2011
2:24 pm
Good afternoon all. The prospective money shortage should be instructive. There will be plenty of money to pay social security checks. There will be plenty of money to pay military payrolls. There will be plenty of money to pay interest on maturing debts. There will be plenty of money to pay bureaucrat paychecks. But there will be only enough money to pay three of those four. Wonder what are the priorities of the ditherer-in-chief? Eventually he will have to vote something other than present.
Larry Sinclair
July 14th, 2011
2:25 pm
Obama?
I call him “President Sugar Britches.”
What he calls me, I can’t say or type here.
Dave R.
July 14th, 2011
2:27 pm
“Kyle, you totally read the statement wrong. Obama did not say he would withhold ss checks but that could be a consequence of not raising the debt ceiling. ”
And No Longer Republican, don’t even think of going into political consulting. “and it will sit on the backs of the Tea Part morons.”
News Flash, NLR – the President ALWAYS gets blamed for failure.
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
2:32 pm
JDW: “If the Ceiling is not raised no one knows how much money will be available on Aug 3.”
What does the debt ceiling have to do with tax collections? Look, I think the “guesses and suppositions” of GS about tax revenues are a heckuva lot stronger than Obama’s hedging about what could get paid and what couldn’t. Take another look at that chart: The gap between revenues and SS benefits (and, when they come due later in the month, interest payments) is in the tens of billions of dollars *every single day of the month*.
In fact, there seems to be more doubt about whether Treasury could physically stop the SS payments from being made than whether there will be enough money to cover the payments themselves.
As for the “it’s no secret” part — that hasn’t stopped generations of politicians, mostly but not exclusively Democrats who are trying to block changes to the program, from saying otherwise. And I’d be willing to wager that most Americans — wrongly, to be sure — believe them.
Did pols from both parties spend the money? Of course. I never said otherwise.
Anyway, it’s interesting you made the Politifact reference, given that Politifact itself gave Obama a “half true” rating in which the main thing on the president’s favor was that there’s no precedent: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-social-security-and-other-federa/
First Sergeant
July 14th, 2011
2:34 pm
that’s goofy
July 14th, 2011
1:18 pm
Thanks Goofy, you straigthen Kyle out before I could get to him. Godd call!
CJ
July 14th, 2011
2:34 pm
In a November 1983 letter from President Reagan to then-Republican Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr.::: “The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar…
Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/14/National-Politics/Graphics/reagan_letter_0514.pdf
DeborahinAthens
July 14th, 2011
2:35 pm
Don’t you get it yet? The Republicans have no intention of raising the debt ceiling because this is their only opportunity to run the economy back into the ditch. They panicked when it was recovering because their only chance of winning the 2012 elections is if the economy is not doing well. They don’t give a rat’s a&$ about the American people. This is the Republican Agenda.
Sandra Moore
July 14th, 2011
2:36 pm
Enter your comments here
No Longer Repblican
July 14th, 2011
2:38 pm
You are so correct Deborah!
Dave R.
July 14th, 2011
2:39 pm
“Don’t you get it yet? The Republicans have no intention of raising the debt ceiling because this is their only opportunity to run the economy back into the ditch.”
Not intended to be a factual statement.
Sandra Moore
July 14th, 2011
2:40 pm
If Obama would create jobs he would have money for the government to spend. He doesn’t know
how to do anything more than spend and raise taxes. Start the impeachment. He is bringing America down. Social Security belongs to the people who paid in and not the illegals and the foreign countries.
Obama is always ass backwards.
Just Me
July 14th, 2011
2:40 pm
“…you know, the last time Obama called Republicans “hostage takers”.”
Well if they don’t want to be called that, then they shouldn’t like that, i.e., if the shoe fits … wear it!
You People Are Suckers
July 14th, 2011
2:40 pm
Kyle – Accepting your argument for the sake of my point (meaning that the link between “payroll taxes” and Social Security has been greatly weakened if not severed), will you admit that the Republican talking point (which you’ve repeated) that a huge percentage of people “pay no federal income tax” is a canard?
If payroll taxes are just thrown into the federal revenue pot and there’s no special guarantee for Social Security and Medicare, that means the 15% people pay for them is just income tax. It’s levied and collected the exact same way (and it is 15%, even for people who are employees, since their employer factors in the 7.5% “employer side tax” when deciding whether to hire them and how much to pay them).
On a related note, that means that our income tax system isn’t “progressive” or even “flat.” It means it’s actually regressive, with people paying more income tax on lower amounts of income than on higher amounts. Income over $106,800 a year is taxed at a lower rate than income below that, if FICA taxes are just like all other taxes. They’re levied exactly the same way as what you label “federal income taxes” and, if your point is correct, spent exactly the same way.
I doubt you’ll reply to this since you don’t like your own contradictions and fallacies to be pointed out, but we’ll see.
Just Me
July 14th, 2011
2:41 pm
“They don’t give a rat’s a&$ about the American people. This is the Republican Agenda.”
Amen Deborah!
Susan Furman
July 14th, 2011
2:41 pm
Enter your comments here
jconservative
July 14th, 2011
2:45 pm
“PsedoTurtle”
I would disagree with your reading of Justice Powell’s opinion. What Powell is saying is that Social Security cannot stop the check of an individual without due process of law. And Social Security has such a system in place and one can appeal to a special Federal District court.
Justice Powell’s opinion does not mean that Congress cannot just scrap the entire program. They can do so. Social Security is a creation of Congress and Congress can end it anytime they chose. The opinion does not mean that the Executive cannot stop ALL payments if funds are not available to fund the checks and they cannot legally borrow the funds.
But we all know Social Security checks are not going to be stopped. That is a 57 million member voting bloc. Neither side is going to kiss off that many voters.
Never forget that the United States has been a socialist society for over 75 years. No one is going to click on “OFF” anytime soon.
Dave R.
July 14th, 2011
2:45 pm
“It means it’s actually regressive, with people paying more income tax on lower amounts of income than on higher amounts. Income over $106,800 a year is taxed at a lower rate than income below that, if FICA taxes are just like all other taxes.’
And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon.
‘Cause no matter how much you want to make them, FICA taxes are NOT just like all other taxes, as they are for a specific purpose, that being to pay for an entitlement.
If you just want to make things up to make an argument, I suggest going back to 2nd grade.
Boo
July 14th, 2011
2:48 pm
How about the checks for the President and Congress “don’t go out?” They are the ones who can’t get the job done. They are not earning their money. Social Security has already been earned by those recipients. If our next Presidential choices are Obama and Goofy, I will be voting for Goofy.
MrLiberty
July 14th, 2011
2:49 pm
Its a PONZI scheme. When are you people going to finally get it through your heads? They have been LYING to you every minute of your working life! That’s what government’s do – they LIE.
There is no contract, no promise, no guarantee. There never has been and there never will be. Accounting tricks so criminal anyone else would have been thrown away for life have been perpetrated on the american public and on the SS “books”.
Since 1965 under Johnson, every president and congress has been spending every penny received and putting worthless IOU’s in its place. Well suckers, the government lie has finally been exposed for all to see, the IOU’s finally need to be spent to pay the bills, and they are worthless (unless you continue to screw every future generation).
This is what getting screwed by the “greatest generation”, the one before them who allowed SS to be implemented, and every generation since that bought into the lie that this was a retirement program feels like. It is a weath transfer program, plain and simple. If it were a retirement program there would actually be an account with money in it, and you wouldn’t be able to get back any more than you paid in. You would also be able to leave the balance to your heirs rather than it being stolen by the government as it actually is.
Take the red pill. The truth will set you free. You can finally see the government for what it is – pure evil. Obama’s lies about not paying seniors and other criminal threats are to be expected from government. He is the cornered rat striking out. The lie of government is falling apart and thanks to the internet the whole world is getting to see it – and they are WORRIED.
More americans would rather us default that raise the debt limit. They know that only the parasites will be hurt seriously, and frankly who cares. They would rather bite the bullet finally than keep kicking the can down the road so that their children and grandchildren suffer the horrible consequences. Good for americans. But of course just like the shaft we got when WE said no to the TARP and they said yes, we will get it again here too – count on it.
Bart Abel
July 14th, 2011
2:49 pm
RE: “Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program.”
With all due respect to Kyle, I don’t believe that crashing the economy on purpose and impairing our ability to make Social Security payments would demonstrate that Social Security isn’t a solid program any more than crashing my car into a tree on purpose would show that its not a safe car to drive. Yes, my car is safe, if I don’t deliberately drive it off the bridge.
President Reagan wrote that not extending the debt ceiling “threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.”
By the way, privatizing Social Security would not protect our savings from a deliberate economic catastrophe. To the contrary.
Mark
July 14th, 2011
2:54 pm
Every one seems to be missing the point! It just boils down to the numbers. SS was meant to be a supplement NOT a retirement. It was a sham from the beginning. Life expectancy would assure a never ending surplus, because few would receive a benefit for much time. Most people NEVER read the statement sent to them from the SS admin, where right on the front page it says “DEPLETED”.
Yet blindly so many want to believe rather then be properly informed. Everyone is focused on the problem rather then the solution. Government employed individuals do NOT pay in NOR take from the SS fund. If it was about the people (of the.. By the… For the…), SS would NOT even be on the table as a discussion.
You People Are Suckers
July 14th, 2011
2:57 pm
Dave R. – That’s the point of the argument – Kyle says in one column that there’s a disappearing linkage between payroll taxes and Social Security, and in another claims that a huge percentage of Americans pay no federal income taxes – a figure largely based on not counting “payroll taxes” as “income taxes.”
If payroll taxes aren’t income taxes and are for Social Security and Medicare, then those commitments need to be kept to everyone who has paid in. If they are income taxes, then factor them into calculations of who pays federal income tax and in the overall rate of what particular people should be paying.
If you can’t understand the point I’m making, second grade may be a little advanced for you.
brad
July 14th, 2011
3:01 pm
Dave R., congrats on winning today’s “best twisting of semantics” award.
Mike
July 14th, 2011
3:02 pm
First of all, this debt celling problem has been going on for a very long time since the days of Younger Bush was in office, and as Pres. you have to take that responible for all the previous problems of the president that you took over from that including debt, wars and everyting else, if anybody else wants to take a job like that, all power to you.
People need to realize that reason why nothing can be done in Washington, no action and alot of finger pointing (look at all the threads before mines and you get the picture), we are blame Obama/DNC/RNC(excluded TP) for a debt celling problem that been going on since the days of GWB, no action but the only thing yall hearing is mud-slinging from everybody across the alisie (sound like something familiar, right NBA and NFL(they are atleast trying). Like Dave R., when you take that Oath of Office for president, you will have the biggest target in the world on you.
For the piece, I look at those Obama interviews and I didnt hear one word about the stuff you were writing down. At the end, its America’s problem and somebody have to put their foot down and get things done. President Obama is doing that and he is going to risk it all to get this done.
Susan Furman
July 14th, 2011
3:03 pm
THe
CJ
July 14th, 2011
3:03 pm
Mark: “…so many want to believe rather then be properly informed….Government employed individuals do NOT pay in NOR take from the SS fund.”
Talk about not being properly informed…
– All members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Federal judges, and most political appointees, were covered under the Social Security program starting in January 1984. They pay into the system just like everyone else. Thus all members of Congress, no matter how long they have been in office, have been paying into the Social Security system since January 1984.
–All federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984 are mandatorily covered under Social Security
So there are still some Federal employees, those first hired prior to January 1984, who are not participants in the Social Security system. All other Federal government employees participate in Social Security like everyone else.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
MrLiberty
July 14th, 2011
3:04 pm
Anyone that thinks there is an ironclad promise regarding SS should keep in mind that the program began by taxing only 3% of the first $3000 in earnings and you qualified at 65 for payments. The age has been raised, the tax has been raised, the percent has been raised, the benefits have been cut, the benefits are now taxed above a certain income level, etc. If congress decided tomorrow to stop paying everyone they could. There is nothing in the Act to prevent that. The pyramid scheme has been going on for nearly 80 years. All the people who got in first got big payoffs. The next group did quite well too. Now that it is our turn we find out that the pyramid is hollow and that only worthless IOU’s are left for payment and that now barely 3 people pay for each recipient rather than the 16 that used to pay in to cover folks back in the 30s when this scam started.
Yes, plenty of people benefitted, but at what price? You are seeing the price. The best is yet to come.
Get Real
July 14th, 2011
3:05 pm
No Longer Repblican actually try spell check Republican
Please disengage your head from your a$$
brad
July 14th, 2011
3:08 pm
Mr. Liberty, how is providing supplemental retirement income “pure evil”? And in an economic collapse, everyone gets hurt. Unless of course you count the Koch bros, et. al.
Tom(Independent)
July 14th, 2011
3:08 pm
Since I paid into SS for over 45 years before I chose to use it, can I sue Obama and the federal govt for non-payment? Or at least try to get my contributions to SS back, along with interest?
Mark
July 14th, 2011
3:08 pm
By the way, as our baby boom generation(the largest generation in the country estimated to be between78-80 million strong) is turning age 65, who can possibly be surprised to think what happens as that block of our population evolve from contributors to that fund to beneficiaries of that fund!
Last Word
July 14th, 2011
3:10 pm
Hey Kyle:
courtesy of their friends at the Wall Street Journal editorial board:
“Republicans who say they can use the debt limit to force Democrats to agree to a balanced budget amendment are dreaming. Such an amendment won’t get the two-thirds vote to pass the Senate, but it would give every Democrat running for re-election next year a chance to vote for it and claim to be a fiscal conservative.
We agree with those who say that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner can cut other federal spending before he allows a technical default on U.S. debt. No doubt that is what he will do. We’d even support a showdown over technical default if we thought it might yield some major government reforms. But Mr. Obama clearly has no such intention.
Instead he and Mr. Geithner will gradually shut down government services, the more painful the better. The polls that now find that voters oppose a debt-limit increase will turn on a dime when Americans start learning that they won’t get Social Security checks. Republicans will then run like they’re fleeing the Pamplona bulls, and chaotic retreats are the ugliest kind. By then they might end up having to vote for a debt-limit increase and a tax increase.
The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren’t prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play…..
We’d far prefer a bipartisan deal to cut spending and reform entitlements without a tax increase. But if Mr. Obama won’t go along, there’s no reason Republicans should help him dodge the political consequences by committing debt-limit harakiri.”
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
3:13 pm
Kyle,
Based on the logic behind ALL of your writings, I’m convinced that you are either delusional or not very smart. “Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program. So, which is it?”
You know dam well that the Republican’s refusal to compromise is endangering social security checks and what a disaster it would have been if social security was directly invested in the market during the 2008 collapse.
Are we in the “no spin zone” or the Outer Limits? So, which is it?
gm
July 14th, 2011
3:16 pm
Let see Bush raised the Debt ceiling 22 times and the hypocrites on the right never said a word.
I agree with President Obama no other President would have sat down with these clowns: Talking about leader ship wow, his problem is he is to nice to these idiots and retards on the right.
How many people are going to line up and vote for these right wing nut jobs?
Moderate Line
July 14th, 2011
3:19 pm
Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program.
So, which is it?
And are you still so sure that giving individuals more control over their own retirement funds is such a bad thing?
++++++++++
Based on 2010 spending these are the things that would not be shutdown based on the revenue for 2010. GDP revenue for 2010 was 14.9 and spending was 23.8 which means revenues equal 62.6% of revenues.
Now look what gets us to the magically 62.6 figure.
National Defense 693,586 0.200678025
Net Interest 186,902 0.054077107 0.254755132
Administration of Justice 53,436 0.015460853 0.270215985
Veterans Benefits 108,384 0.031359178 0.301575163
Medicare 451,636 0.130673659 0.432248823
Social Security 706,737 0.204483057 0.63673188
We are now over the 62.6%.
Look at what would have to be shut down.
All Transportation spending including Air Traffic Control which would completely shutdown the airlines.
All international affairs.
All General Science, Space, and Technology.
All energy which would include TVA and Western Area Power Administrations which produces electricity. .
All Natural Resources and Environment spending.
All Agriculture spending.
All commerce and housing spending.
All income security include unemployment insurance which by the way is a payroll tax.
Dave R.
July 14th, 2011
3:22 pm
“If payroll taxes aren’t income taxes and are for Social Security and Medicare, then those commitments need to be kept to everyone who has paid in.”
Keeping a commitment isn’t the same as keeping a certain level of payments; just means the programs continue.
This Started w/Bush
July 14th, 2011
3:23 pm
I can’t believe all of you Bush voter’s bashing Obama, and it all started w/Bush, plus you’ll voted him in twice. Shame on you all. I don’t care if Obama fixed majority of the problems you’ll still wouldn’t be satisfied. No matter what Obama is doing a better job in office than Mr. Retarded Bush.
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
3:24 pm
Moderate Line: That’s a great list — it’s part of what I meant when I wrote there’d be a price to pay for not raising the debt ceiling. If Obama had listed those things, I’d have had no problem with it. I wonder why he didn’t?
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
3:25 pm
Big Government Conservatives really struggle with reality don’t they? This idea that default doesn’t mean anything, that it’s just that darn President Obama whipping up fear is so very sad. At best, none of us really knows what the consequences would be if we default because there is no precedent. That is one reason why this little missive is not completely honest.
Of course this could all go away today if Republicans would take the $4 Trillion deal and run, or just raise the ceiling cleanly, you know as they did multiple times when President Bush was in office and we were told that “deficits don’t matter”. Y’all do remember that from the former Vice President don’t you?
No folks, this little theater is a Republican production. They have run up the debt consistently and now, when they say we must cut the deficit they help create, they don’t want to do it because they signed pledges they hold more dear than our Constitution.
You folks need to listen to the Wall Street Journal editorial board. You lost! Raise the ceiling already and stop inflicting pain upon yourself. They are quite correct, once granny doesn’t get that check, you will be blamed as it is quite clear that it is not President Obama whose signature is on those pledges to the devil.
If you people really aren’t Big Government Conservatives, you take the $4 Trillion deal and do it now. If you can’t do that, then do what you usually do and raise the ceiling cleanly. No more, “President Obama is a meanie blah blah blah..”. This is all on you now. You clearly picked this fight and now you clearly are losing. So do the country and the world economy a big favor. Act like responsible adults and end this already. You are embarrassing yourself. Pull up those pants and stop showing your behinds. The country has deficit fatigue and is ready to move on.
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
3:25 pm
gm: 22 times? I’ll assume that was a typo.
Road Scholar
July 14th, 2011
3:25 pm
Karen: Boo HOO !
yuzeyurbrane
July 14th, 2011
3:26 pm
Let’s face it, someone is not going to get paid if revenues cover only 60% of expenditures. Certainly, there is some discretion in determining who and who does not get paid or if pro rata payments are made but you can’t square this circle completely Kyle. As far as distorting statements, you Kyle are guilty here. Certainly SS is as close to a guaranteed payment as you can get thanks to the successful rejection of Repub efforts to invest its funds in the stock mkt. It has, until this year, always run at a surplus of revenues over payments. Even this year, the difference was met by the interest on the Treasury Bonds it holds. Indeed, there is a $4.5 trillion aggregate surplus in the SS Trust Fund. And do those funds just sit there? Of course not, they have been invested in US Treasury bonds to earn income. Until now that has been the world’s safest investment. Still, it is projected that revenues plus interest will cover all payments for at least 10 more years and that revenues, interest and bond redemptions would cover 100% of payments for at least another 25 years. And, with minor adjustments which should be made in the normal legis. process (hearings, votes, etc.), SS can remain solvent for another 75 years or longer. But now the failure to raise the debt ceiling would jeopardize the world’s safest investment, US Treasury Bonds. It is interesting that it is Republicans who are suggesting that the interest on the debt (i.e. US Treasury Bonds) be paid first before SS. Are they suggesting that Treasury Bonds held by the SS Trust Fund are not as valuable as those held by private investors, banks and even foreign countries like China? Are they suggesting, as you do Kyle, that they are essentially worthless IOU’s? When you begin to choose wealthy investors and China over the Seniors who worked hard their whole lives and are the ones who disproportionately paid the FICA taxes that made the SS Trust Fund possible then we are in a country with a perplexing moral dilemma. Kind of a reverse Robinhood. Which ties into your other recent column re the declining moral standards in this country. Hypocrite.
RenaP
July 14th, 2011
3:28 pm
The republicans need to ditch the “Robin Hood” theory. They are always trying to take from the poor to give to the rich.
keekee
July 14th, 2011
3:29 pm
Being that so many American people read these articles and get caught in the hype to hate what President Obama is doing for the country, Kyle I hope that it is never your grandma or grandpa that needs their SSI.
JohnnyReb
July 14th, 2011
3:31 pm
In negotiations such as on the debt limit, it is important to know when your opponent is lying.
Do you know how Boehner can tell when Obama is lying? His lips are moving!
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
3:37 pm
yuzeyurbrane @ 3:26
Bravo! Well written, logical arguments. They will be lost on this crowd.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
3:41 pm
I suppose that the “equal time” doctrine demands that the AJC keeps Kyle around to dish out Republican propaganda,
but are Social Sercurity payments more important that payment to the troops in the bushes? Does Social Security trumps
FBI agents tracking Arab terrorists? Does Social security payments trump the payments to those who guide airplanes through American skies?
The answer is a resounding no, but typical of Republican propagandists you go for the lowest denominator- seniors who
can be reported to and informationally manipulated to “see” the demon Obama is. Go Kyle! You have your propaganda methodology down to a science.
Jack
July 14th, 2011
3:45 pm
I don’t think Obama got much sleep last night.
DB
July 14th, 2011
3:56 pm
Wow, so many conservatives are drinking the Kool-Aid. The main sticking point of the debt ceiling debate is that the conservatives don’t want to break a promise of super low taxes so they can get re-elected. We are in this mess due to deep tax cuts in the first place. Domestic and defense ’spending’ only accounts for 15% of this mess that we are in; the bulk comes from lack of revenue (The Bush tax cuts and the extension of those cuts by Obama). I’m not a dem or a repub, but the Dems have it correct; they agreed to cut spending AND realize that our country needs more REVENUE; a balanced approach. Anyone with half a brain can see that this is the route that we should take. But the conservatives are playing ‘politics’ by not looking at the big picture and would like to fill their constituents heads with nonsense. Two key takeaways about the current conservative nonsense machine… Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times during his tenure; so why such a hard stance now? Next… The Republican ‘Messiah’, Pres. Reagen actually raised taxes during a recession because he was smart enough to realize that the Federal govt needed to increase revenue to get out of the deficit. But now that the hated Obama is doing the SAME thing that Repubs in the past did with success; they try to spin it like he’s trying to run the country into the ground. It’s not that difficult to see the mind games that the conservatives are playing on the American people right about now. Again; I’m an Independent, but I vote according to which party is the lesser of two evils. At the moment, the Repubs are the more evil; just open your eyes and minds and you’ll see the same.
Hurry up 2012!
July 14th, 2011
4:00 pm
Democrats and Republicans are going to have to find a middle ground in the debt-limit debate. It is going to take a simple compromise where the rich, poor and old all feel the pain. That’s what this recession still hasn’t taught Americans. Recessions are often called “hard times.” And these “hard times” are going to hurt everyone…from those receiving social security to those receiving welfare…but every American needs to be affected. While these preposterous debates on Pennsylvania Avenue have been very frustrating, I have become more frustrated with these politicians, particularly Mr. Commander-in-Chief, having their own political re-election agendas during the debate. Don’t mind the fact we are about to default on our national debt, but rather focus on your big election next year…nice, real nice. Illinois seems to be in pretty bad shape; perhaps they will welcome him back with open arms in January 2013?
Neal Kelley
July 14th, 2011
4:01 pm
How is it that everything under the sun is Obama fault. IT IS THE REPUBLICANS that has and is still taking hostages. They have an attitude of our way or the the highway. Obama is simply doing his job and not given into the republicans partisan demands. I am tired of the Rich get Richer theme from the repubs… If you do not believe me.. simply google republicans and debt ceiling.. and you will a flood of topics saying how the republicans refuse to budge…
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
4:04 pm
yuze: I never said we could “square the circle completely” — when you’re borrowing about 40 cents of every $1 you spend, of course you can’t keep spending as much money if the credit card is cut up. Nor have I advocated that course of action. What I’ve said today are two things: a, the president is making even clearer than before that SS is not a “guaranteed” thing, and b) he’s resorting to politics and scaremongering at the same time he’s calling himself the only adult in the room.
Finally, when did I say the IOUs to the trust fund are worthless? What I said is that it will take new tax revenues to pay them off, which is true. Now, if those tax revenues don’t materialize, for whatever reason, then I guess those IOUs might become worthless. But imo, the fact that it’s going to take a lot more tax revenue in the future to make good on SS’s promises is all the more reason not to raise taxes now to pay for other government spending that’s gotten out of hand.
The whole situation is out of control, and it’s unbelievable to me that the GOP’s very reasonable request to cut spending over *10 years* by the amount that the president wants to borrow over the next *18 months* has turned out this way.
JAP
July 14th, 2011
4:04 pm
I agree with RenaP. The republicans’ purpose has always been to make the rich richer. I don’t understand why people cannot see that. Why do you think the republicans in congress do not want a tax increase? Because it will only affect rich – you know who they are, right? The people who make money in their sleep. God forbid they have a tax increase!! The world will really go under then. I pray the president does not cave in. After all, all of this is because republicans cheated in 2000 and the most terrible president of all time was elected – George W. Bush. You want someone to blame for all of this – blame him!!!
Neal Kelley
July 14th, 2011
4:04 pm
And another point i want to express.. people have been screaming bloody about Obama health care plan. Saying it is socialist in nature.. yet we already have a government sponsored health care system.. it is called medicaid and medicare. Wake people.. and stop sniffing what the repubs are selling..
Rafe Hollister
July 14th, 2011
4:05 pm
The Republicans need to protect themselves here, as the Fibber in Chief is going to do whatever he can to embarass them and place them in a disadvantage for the election. The money will be there for SocSeC, Medicaid, Military Pay, and interest on the debt, however, he may use his power over the agencies under him to delay or stop payment in any of these categories, in order to make his point.
Someone, I believe it may have been Dick Morris, said the Rep house can prevent this by immediately passing a special appropriation bill funding only the program, he says we can not maintain. They could do this on a monthly basis. The same bill would then raise the debt ceiling by that amount. If the Senate refused or he refused to sign, the voters would know who was stopping the checks.
Bud Wiser
July 14th, 2011
4:08 pm
DB writes: … We are in this mess due to deep tax cuts in the first place…
Not up on the facts there, are you? No left wing tool ever is. Obama and the tools in Congress have quadrupled the debt amassed by their predecessor in just 1/4 the time.
You could take every penny from the top 25% of the wage earners, who coincidentally pay @ 78% of all income taxes collected, and not even scratch the surface of just one expenditure called Obamacare.
Repeal that costly piece of garbage, and the current crop of fools in DC could in fact just sit on their thumbs (pointed skyward, no doubt) until 2012 elections, then do some real work after the democrats ranks have been substantially reduced.
Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are about as long as, say, you suddenly growing a new and totally functional brain.
Rafe Hollister
July 14th, 2011
4:12 pm
JAP
The heated retoric over the rich, who make money in their sleep, according to you is fasionating to me. Barry sturs everyone up with his class warfare about corporate jets and millionaires and billionaires paying just a little more. Then when someone asks for specifics, he always says no one making more than $200,000 a year will be hurt, so why are you bitching. We quickly go from people described as billionaires to 200,000. When the rules are finally put on paper, the $200,000 may decrease significantly.
So the question is, are you rich? Should I dispise and hate you and root for your demise?
RGB
July 14th, 2011
4:14 pm
What–there’s no Social Security lock box?
Next thing you know folks will say Algore didn’t take the initiative to invent the Internet or that man-made global warming is based on junk science.
We are the ones we’ve been waiting on.
John
July 14th, 2011
4:14 pm
Kyle, doesn’t the US also guarantee our creditors? What about the guarantee the US has made to members of the military? Which guarantee should take president?
Rafe Hollister
July 14th, 2011
4:17 pm
facinating and stirs, I can spell most of the time inspite of gov school education.
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
4:18 pm
@ Bud Wiser 4:08
I’m not really sure how to get the numbers to prove you wrong but there is no way “you could take evey penny from the top 25% of wage earners…and not even scratch the surface of…Obamacare”. Now I don’t have access to how much money the top 25% completely earn but I know for a fact that it’s more than the yearly costs of Obamacare. Do you mean taking 100% of the top 25% income once won’t pay for Obamacare over, say, 200 years? Maybe that would be correct but you didn’t say that.
CJ
July 14th, 2011
4:29 pm
“Take one scenario: choosing to protect the safety net programs, Treasury could conceivably pay interest on the debt, Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid provider payments, food stamps and welfare, rent for those on low-income rent assistance, unemployment insurance benefits, Veterans Affairs programs, special education grants, and tuition assistance – and nothing else. Defense vendor payments would be delayed, the active duty military would not be paid, IRS refunds would stop flowing, all federal employees would be furloughed, and the Departments of Justice, Labor, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Health and Human Services would all be left unfunded.
Complicating matters further, the above scenario relies on the premise that Treasury can mechanically prioritize payments in such a fashion. Treasury makes 80 million payments a month through a computer system that is not designed to prioritize one payment over another. Treasury Secretary Geithner has questioned even the notion that it is feasible.
Moreover, if Treasury immediately has to stop 44% of all federal spending, financial markets world-wide are likely to notice. As a recent USA Today article describes, ‘the picture gets worse: Layoffs and lawsuits. Market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access and the demise of the dollar.’
Treasury securities are considered to be the only risk-free financial asset in the world, and as such, form the basis for millions of investments. If a deal to raise the debt ceiling is not reached by the X Date, interest rates on Treasury securities could rise to reflect the presence of risk. Higher rates would, in turn, immediately lower the values of many Americans’ retirement funds, savings, and investments. Under these circumstances, the cost of borrowing would increase, and the global financial system could reel.”
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2011/07/bpc-report-highlights-dangers-breaching-debt-ceiling-%E2%80%9Cx-date%E2%80%9D
Mike
July 14th, 2011
4:33 pm
Honestly, I am figure out why I dont like stuff like this, from Health Care to this, Mr. Obama has been bombed and been Single point of blame for everything. He is doing his job as President and that poor guy cant get a break from anybody.
Havent we learned from the past about superpowers that came before us like Persia, Rome and other great nations that failed because of internal crap like this. Nobody is perfect, President’s job is the toughest of any job in America, it is a single point of failure and blame for any problem. Obama’s is a tough man, because I would got on national T.V. and tell it how it really is, holding no punches back.
Just maybe we shouldnt do nothing about it, maybe we should hit default, maybe we should just blame everybody, while America is getting left behind by China, Russia, heck even Japan(with earthquake and all)in everything, what we do about it, complain about it and place blame on person that is trying his best. Maybe that is what America right now, a very good shock treatment, that placing blame isnt going to solve this problem or take care of you and families(if yall have some) needs and wants.
Everybody need to get their collective heads out of their butts, from Senate and HoR, put aside poticial parties for once in their lives, dont worry about that damned election next year and work together as Americans to get this done right now. That including the 2012 Budget as well.
Sorry about this rant, but I think we need to stop placing blame and just get to work to make this country better for my daughter sake and for everybody that was born in the wonderful country that God has blessed.
brad
July 14th, 2011
4:33 pm
He made it up, Chuck. And if he keeps screaming at us loudly enough, we’re supposed to believe him.
MrLiberty
July 14th, 2011
4:34 pm
John – There are no guarantees. The government allows private companies to break their committments to employees and retirees and they are certainly a group with far lower morals. They would screw the military in a heartbeat if they had someone else (maybe all those private mercenaries they hired in Iraq and Afghanistan) to protect them. Back after WWI a huge group of veterans decended on Washington in protest of their unemployment during the Depression and empty guarantees by the government for service payments. The military at the time (led by Douglass MacArthur) murdered two of the 43,000 protestors when they resisted being removed. When the government is threatened, they don’t care about the folks they are supposedly working for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army And the word is precedent, not president.
The suggestion that the US default on its debt obligations has been made before, most cogently by Murray Rothbard. It is a sound suggestion. The purchase of debt obligations issued by the US government is basically enabling the enslavement of the citizenry of the US. The government does not produce ANYTHING, so every penny it gets it gets through taxation/theft. In order to pay interest on bonds and similar, it must tax us even more than the amount of the principle it is borrowing. This in essence guarantees future enslavement of the population as the fruits of their labor will need to be taken to pay these debts.
As those who purchase these debts are enabling this enslavement, defaulting on those debts is little more than cancelling a portion of that slavery contract. Those who lent the US money were doing so based on faith and trust and those who have to do the paying never agreed to the debt in the first place and by defaulting are basically saying “too bad.”
The great positive of a default is that the US government would likely not be able to borrow any more money from ANYONE either ever again or for a long time and would certainly have to pay very high interest rates. This would finally FORCE some fiscal responsibility.
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
4:35 pm
I say call his bluff and see what happens. I can get by without my SS check but I bet it never happens.
brad
July 14th, 2011
4:35 pm
Hey, Mr. Liberty, take a look at some of your parasites:
http://downbutnotoutletters.tumblr.com/
But as long as the Koch brothers are OK, your world is fine, right?
DB
July 14th, 2011
4:37 pm
@bud wiser… As I said before; drinking the Kool-aid. PPACA (AKA ObamaCare) hasn’t fully rolled out yet, so umm, where are those numbers coming from? Corporate benefit plans have barely even risen from the biggest change so far (increasing the child dependent age). But if you listen to the Kool-Aid vendors, it’s cost our country 349823 trillion dollars so far.
Our debt is from 1st place; lack of revenue (Bush and Obama). 2nd place is the wars (Bush and Obama). 3rd place is domestic spending (Everyone). Obama has enough brains to look at his mistakes (giving in to keeping tax cuts) and ALSO cut spending where necessary. The repubs aren’t owning up to their mistakes; but just spewing political talking points that don’t make much financial sense.
Again, I’m not left wing by any means. I actually have an open mind. Note: I voted for Bush the first time around because he was by far the best candidate running at that time and he ‘talked’ a good game. Of course I didn’t know that Bush was Cheney’s puppet (I didn’t see that coming).
RGB
July 14th, 2011
4:37 pm
As Karl Rove said in his column today: “Mr. Boehner’s modest proposal was to trim that back 5.2% over the decade, but the president balked.”
RGB
July 14th, 2011
4:38 pm
“…ALSO cut spending where necessary”.
Where? Ever? Once?
I can’t believe people never read anything any more.
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
4:40 pm
Why have Republicans refused the $4 Trillion deficit reduction deal proposed by President Obama and until recently, Speaker Boehner? Can people get off the name calling and talking points and answer that simple question?
Why did all but nine congressional Republicans vote for Ryancare, a plan that the CBO says will add $6 Trillion in debt in the next ten years? That doesn’t sound like to me that all the Republicans want is, “..to cut spending over *10 years* by the amount that the president wants to borrow over the next *18 months….
This must be the place where facts and reality go to die.
MrLiberty
July 14th, 2011
4:41 pm
Mike – The other empires you mentioned didn’t fail because of infighting. They failed because they overextended themselves both geographically and financially. Currently we have over 1000 bases in over 180 countries around the globe. We spend over $1 Trillion a year on defense when you add up everything in every department that supports the military-industrial complex. We are sending hundreds of billions to foreign leaders to buy their loyalty (not to help their poor). Frankly the healthiest thing we can do is actually to discuss the issues and demand change.
Don’t let Obama off the hook. He came into office saying he was going to get rid of the Patriot Act, bring the troops home, retore our civil liberties, etc. (IN other words, be different from Bush). He is basically serving out Bush’s third term, and these have all been his changes, not something he was forced to take. He even promised to leave the medical marijuana clinics alone and just recently ordered a major crackdown. These are victimless crimes that have been legalized by the states and he is wasting federal dollars that we don’t have just to pad the salaries of DEA officials and employees along with the folks who run the federal prison system.
Obama deserves all the condemnation he is getting. Bush deserves all the condemnation he is getting. Both parties are working together to make sure they suck as much life out of america before it collapses. That their actions are going to be the contributing factors is of little consequence to them.
Ron Paul 2012. End the Fed.
Bill
July 14th, 2011
4:44 pm
Its just another ploy by crooked bankers and politicions to steel peoples 401ks by letting the stock market crash again.The millions of people with an average of seventy four thosand dollars in each account,they are going to make sure the average joe don’t get to keep a dime.It happens every time! Bend over seniors,here it comes again! Looks like we have us a one term president.
DB
July 14th, 2011
4:47 pm
@ RGB: The President balked because we need revenue increases in addition to the 5.2% spending cuts….
MrLiberty
July 14th, 2011
4:48 pm
brad – when money is taken from the private sector and spent in the government sector there is a loss in productivity and prosperity. The Koch brothers are scum. They are just using the libertarian label to gain a level of acceptability, but ultimately they too are using the power and force of government to steal from the private sector to line their pockets.
I have empathy for the out of work folks. Had our government not stolen so much money from the private sector, not destroyed our currency to payoff their banker friends, done the same to payoff their friends in the military industrial complex, etc. over the past 50 years or so (well truly since the creation of the Fed in 1913 and certainly since going off the gold standard in 1973), business in this country would be booming and all those folks who found job openings in the govenrment sector would have instead found openings in the private sector doing something productive instead of what government does.
I made a conscious decision to avoid working for the government because I would rather contribute to the productive sector of society and because I find it morally preferable to work in a job situation in which my company’s compensation comes through voluntary exchange. That same choice was available to everyone. Feeding the beast with labor is still feeding the beast.
You stink
July 14th, 2011
4:50 pm
Wingfield,
Your thoughts and ideas are full of sh—–t. Our economy is facing some serious problems. Everything that President Obama stated about the debt ceiling makes a lot of sense to me. I personally think that Obama should stick to what he believes in about the budget. Yes I think he’s telling the truth about Social Security.
raildee
July 14th, 2011
4:59 pm
When are we going to stop using America hard earned money on other people WARS. Between Bush and Regan the deceit would be at 7 trillion dollars. Let’s look at were most of the money is going and for what. Military (Iraq War, Libya and NOW Afghanistan). I found it sad that everyone keep talking about SS and Medicare, but not money that we are put into these WARS
detritusUSA
July 14th, 2011
5:27 pm
Keep it up republicans. You’re proving to all modern Americans what our (some of us) parents and grandparents always said about the republicans: they are the party of the wealthy and don’t care about ordinary Americans. The republicans just want us to die, and their conservative dupes follow along like the ignorant sheep they are.
gm
July 14th, 2011
5:29 pm
Lets see, Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times and added 4 trillion dollars to the National Debt and the Rep hypocrites said nothing I guess the conservatives bigots of tea party people only cared about the future when Obama took office.
How can anybody follow these hypocrites?
Jefferson
July 14th, 2011
5:29 pm
Kyle, you are throwing little balls in the fan again, but thats just what you guys do for money. He should pay SS and stiff the military, they might attack congress.
Powerful guy eh?
At the end of the day(s), the GOP will cave and the drama will move on, just think what the lady is going to do if she gets to be president.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
5:36 pm
There are those who have the view that we should not raise taxes on “job creators.” However, when was the last time anyone here saw an ExonMobil or Haliburton table at a job fair?
Republicraps would have us believe that we ought to give the country to big business and special interests, but BP does not care anything more about America more than it does about Brazil or Venezuela or Norway or Kuwait. These multinationals are not like the Goodwill “putting people to work.” Kyle Wingfield probably have stock in both, so he is incapable of speaking the truth.
Why should a 95 year old great great grand mother getting $800 per month have to give up $50 of it so Exxon can buy another corporate jet? Obama; hold your ground. Lock this country down and let the “job creators” see if they will be able to find any place to hide from the roving hungry mobs.
Drifter
July 14th, 2011
5:43 pm
The job creators aren’t going to create jobs in this country unless there is no other choice…and there usually is a choice. Cuts taxes on them and instead of hiring 1 American, they’ll hire 2-3 workers in one of the “emerging” countries.
bob
July 14th, 2011
5:45 pm
Deb in Athens, back into the ditch ? When did the economy pull out of the ditch ?
That Black guy
July 14th, 2011
5:47 pm
Jed “killing the middle class, seniors, and poor is the republicans objective”
But if rebubs kill the middle class, seniors, and the poor, who would they steal from as you libs constantly claim?
Logical failure.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
July 14th, 2011
5:47 pm
Ask the people that voted for him two-and-a-half years ago just how all this fairness is working out for ‘em and ask ‘em how their lives have improved. Do they have the new kitchen they were gonna get? Do they have the new car they thought they were gonna get? Is Warren Buffett sleeping in the gutter?
Hope and pocket change was what they got.
That Black guy
July 14th, 2011
5:51 pm
No Longer Repblican
July 14th, 2011
2:03 pm
Great way to debunk what Kyle wrote. I mean ALL those facts, charts, links, logical emotionless points really convinced me.
HA!!!!
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
5:53 pm
@I Report: Your intelligence level could not help you to see past a new car and a new kitchen if we hooked up a telescope to it. You are deluded if a new car and a new kitchen is what your life is about. God help you.
Will
July 14th, 2011
5:58 pm
How nieve almost everyone here is! Especially the liberal minded folks, cant believe you honestly are happy with the production of our government since the last election. Your blind by a misleading agenda. To even think that Lilberals and Conservatives actually have different agendas is hilarious. Our government is in panic mode right now, and both parties are trying to hide it through so called “Headline News” events. Wake up people, our government is running a business as an uncontrollable train ride that will ultimately crash.
If you run a business, are you going to keep raising your debt, keep creating unnecessary programs, keep hiring when you have no money to pay your own salary, and so on….
We need to run our government more cleanly with more cost and price awareness.
Also, get rid of the federal governments huge role in our everyday lives. They should be there for one reason alone. If states are bickering over certain resources or other arguments then the federal government should step in and make a decision thats fair and honest for the states involved.
Will
July 14th, 2011
6:02 pm
Self worth and the ability to strive for something better is dying in this country, dying quick.
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
6:02 pm
Black Guy,
All of the facts, charts, links, and logical points wouldn’t convince anyway. You would just stomp your foot and cry out “I’m not playing anymore unless I get my way”. Sound like some people we’ve been hearing about?
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
6:12 pm
@Will You should have given your little speech to George Bush when he was invading Iraq
and lying about Yellow cake uranium from Niger and outing a CIA agent to cover his
lie. You should have given your little speech to Cheney when he was securing
multi billion multi year tax cuts for those who were busy pimping the middle class.
You sound like Eddie Long on Sunday morning after a Saturday night at a San
Francisco bath house. How convenient can your Road to Damascus be?
RGB
July 14th, 2011
6:18 pm
I think liberals like to eat yellow cake uranium.
And they sure seem to know a lot about bath houses in San Francisco.
And they talk about “outing” a lot.
And pimping.
I’m beginning to put two and two together.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
July 14th, 2011
6:25 pm
OK, Ramzad, I give up, what would you libs do with our money if obozo ever gives it to you?
Will
July 14th, 2011
6:26 pm
@Ramzad
Never blamed this whole crisis on one party, I agree that the republicans have done their fair share of outrageous spending. Im sure if you could actually look further in to it you would find much more than that. But, to blame it solely on the republicans is ridiculous.
Quit putting yourself in a category, and think for yourself. Use Logic!
Eat Your Peas Like a Good Liberal
July 14th, 2011
6:28 pm
Obama says we should rip off our band aids and eat our peas. What is he, our mommy? Does that include the 51% who paid no federal income tax last year after incentives like the EIC? Then he storms out of the budget debate in a hissy fit. So much for No Drama Obama, eh? Welcome to the real world where everyone doesn’t think like a Chicago poliltical hack. And saying “don’t call my bluff?” Anyone ever used that phrase playing poker before? Either Obama doesn’t play cards or he *is* bluffing. On to the news…….
“PRINCETON, NJ — Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the “Republican Party’s candidate for president” than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama’s re-election prospects.”
Keep a close eye on the DNC main stream liberal media trying to circle the wagons on their guy and damage control wherever applicable (like blaming Bush stories).
“The president is planning an extravagant 50th birthday fundraising bash Aug. 3 at the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago, including a birthday concert teeming with celebrities and – for couples contributing $35,800 – a private dinner with the president. All this just one day after the government is scheduled to run out of cash.”
Wonder how many millionaire celebrities will fly in on their corporate private jets – the type Obama keeps childishly bringing up in a state of class warfare.
“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she is “almost too busy” to continue listening to what is going on in the debt limit meetings at the White House with congressional leaders.”
Is that the same Nanny Pelosi who said ObummerCare would create 400k new jobs almost instantly? Or who said ObummerCare would create jobs through entrepenuers who would be free to do other things with their money and start businesses instead of worrying about their health care? Botox breath wouldn’t know job creation at a corner taco stand.
“DALLAS — At least eight people were hurt Thursday morning while scrambling to line up for a limited number of Dallas County [Section 8] rental vouchers — after waiting for hours in their cars. ‘It was a madhouse,’ said applicant Ada McKinsey, who was injured as the crowd closed in around the door. ‘People pushing, fighting.’”
Rumor has it a Dallas Cowboys scout was there with a stop watch looking for speed and the ability to push through the gravity challenged folk.
rob
July 14th, 2011
6:28 pm
There you kids go again, following the carrot on the stick that the republicans are dangling in front of you. Why would you want to abolish social security? Do you think you’re going to end up with a bigger paycheck? Think again, cause all of those millionaires and billionaires out there need your “paycheck deductions” to fund their tax cuts they are unwilling to give up. If they kill social security, if they discount social security anymore than they did without a COLA for two years already, you’re going to see the economy blow up. Think you’re safe at your jobs? You’ll be pawning your tattoos and piercing to eat. Learn to think on your own. This is what they were trying to teach you in HS and college. Think about how these changes are going to effect you, and stop listening to these talking heads and used car salesman turned republican Congressman. Obama has made some mistakes, and I certainly don’t agree with some of his spending programs. But social security and medicare are insurance policies many of us have already paid in full.
Will
July 14th, 2011
6:29 pm
@RGB
Comment was great, pretty hilarious
George P. Burdell
July 14th, 2011
6:31 pm
The corporate jet tax benefit amounts to $300 million per year. How in the world do you equate that with granny losing $50 a month out of her Social Security check? If the two were even directly related, it would be more like $0.44 per month out of her check. Talk about totally misrepresenting facts.
If Social Security taxes are such a sticking point, why don’t we just track the amount put in by each number, pay a interest payment to the outstanding balances, and track payouts by the account. We know you would never agree to such a thing because while the tax is regressive, the payouts are definitely progressive, and heavily so.
gm
July 14th, 2011
6:34 pm
The God of the Rep party Reagan raised the Debt ceiling 17 times, increased taxs, but the retards on the right were ok with that, this shows what a bunch of idiots in the tea party and hypocrites in the rep conservative party.
They will do anything to try to hurt Obama chances of wining next year, they care little about America but yet the idiots continue to support them.
Will
July 14th, 2011
6:35 pm
@rob
I dont think anyone truley wants to eradicate SS. I think what people want is to have SS money reserved for SS purposes only. I dont think the government should even be allowed to handle it and tap into it.
Eat Your Peas Like a Good Liberal
July 14th, 2011
6:44 pm
How many of you bed wetting liberals were worried about SS checks not being sent out over the past TWO YEARS that the Democrats failed to pass a budget entirely? Yeah that’s what I thought.
And SS will be completely insolvent in less than 25 years, so hopefully those with at least that much time left to retire are making other arrangements for their retirement. But my guess is that well over half are not, and most of them vote Democrat.
John Radney
July 14th, 2011
6:48 pm
What, 70 to 85 years we live. Ane you have got to have you SS check. What have tyou done all those years. If that’s all you have, kill your worthless self. I would be ashamed to admit I had to live from govt handout to the next.
That Black guy
July 14th, 2011
6:48 pm
You People Are Suckers
July 14th, 2011
2:57 pm
Keep working your thinking cap, I think it’s malfunctioning. Kyle, in the column about what ever percentage not paying federal income tax is valid. lets use this example.
You buy a car from your parents for $1200 making $100 per month payments. At the end of the 12 months your parents give you $1300. Did you pay for the car?
$1200 = yearly federal tax burden
$100 = federal payroll tax deductions
$1300 = tax refund
Get it? Good!
Dirty Dishonest Donkeys
July 14th, 2011
6:51 pm
Only we should handle our SS money, right Will?
Same said for the rest of our “safety net”. We don’t need crooked middlemen like these politicians and their crony bureaucrats we have now handling our money taking care of our business. We can do a better job than they ever will.
Eat Your Peas Like a Good Liberal
July 14th, 2011
6:53 pm
“I would be ashamed to admit I had to live from govt handout to the next.”
Actually John, it’s not a government handout. It’s a government PONZI scheme – like the type if a corporation gets involved with, people go to JAIL over. But our political halfassed hacks in Washington (mostly Democrat) like to pretend is safe and secure (they said the same about Fannie/Freddie too).
That Black guy
July 14th, 2011
6:58 pm
RenaP
July 14th, 2011
3:28 pm
Robin Hood stole from the gov’t (tax collectors) to give back to the people that paid the taxes.
killerj
July 14th, 2011
7:00 pm
Well Well Well,more trash from under the rug,nice to know both sides are doing such a wonderful job………..Go Tea Party.
Eat Your Peas Like a Good Liberal
July 14th, 2011
7:05 pm
“Robin Hood stole from the gov’t (tax collectors) to give back to the people that paid the taxes.”
Must be that top 25% of income earners that pays nearly 90% of them…
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
7:09 pm
Can we please tell the truth?
Republicans have always been opposed to programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That’s historical fact.
Now they have voted for a plan that would shift over $6k in Medicare costs onto seniors without doing much at all to control costs.
Let us not forget that President Bush tried to privatize Social Security, another $2 Trillion boondoggle that would have handed Wall Street even more control over our lives.
Republicans will tell you anything and with a straight face. For example, according to Fox News, there were no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil while President Bush 43 was in office. That’s right kids, just like deficits don’t matter and President Obama is a foreign-born Muslim operative out to destroy this fine country!
The Social Darwinists are out for all to see. If you live in this country, somewhere you benefit from “big government”. Some sad souls have been deluded into believing they are the predators when they are, in fact, the prey! You see the way it works is that there is someone richer and more powerful and greedy than anyone commenting here today. The way social darwinsim dictates that after they finish with bed wetting liberals and all the people you despise, they’ll have no more use for you.Yep, they’ll finish you off afterwards and destroy each other.
I swear some of y’all don’t have one good half-lick of sense in your head.
That Black guy
July 14th, 2011
7:12 pm
MrLiberty
4:48 pm
“The Koch brothers are scum”
I’ve always wondered why the left always bring up the Koch Bros (who employ 70,000 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries)
but never bring up George Soros (not sure how many people he employs but I bet it’s not 70,000)
they BOTH do the same thing politically, BUT Soros has collapsed the currency in at least 1 maybe 2 countries. Why no comments about Soros? Because he’s a lib?
Dirty Dishonest Donkeys
July 14th, 2011
7:12 pm
Lies and liars.
mountain man
July 14th, 2011
7:18 pm
And the Republicans (by way of Ryan) have been saying that the money in the SS trust fund isn’t really there. It is only IOU’s, sort of like Savings Bonds, and the US really doesn’t have to honor them. Good luck with that one, Repugs. Try that and you will guarantee a Democratic victory next November.
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
7:22 pm
Raise taxes on Soros and the Kochs. Really simple stuff.
For those of you who like facts, here’s a nice graph of tax rates and job growth: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/tax-rates-and-job-creation-in-one-graph/2011/05/19/AGh9Z1oH_blog.html
That’s right folks, we need to bring back the rates of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years if you believe the b.s. about “job creators” and their tax rates.
See, you don’t need to call names and recite talking points when you have reality on your side.
That Black guy
July 14th, 2011
7:24 pm
Chuck 6:02 pm “You would just stomp your foot and cry out “I’m not playing anymore unless I get my way”.
Hey Chuckie, since you are clairvoyant and KNOW what the future will be, can you give me the lottery numbers for tomorrow?
BTW I don’t have a problem with a tax increase, I just want to see REAL cuts now. What they are offering is reductions in increases of FUTURE budgets.
I.E. they were going to increase the budget for DOE by $25B, as a compromise they are offering to increase the budget for DOE by ONLY $23.5B. Is that a cut?
Dirty Dishonest Donkeys
July 14th, 2011
7:26 pm
Lies and bigger liars.
Concerned Citizen
July 14th, 2011
7:34 pm
As long as I’m paying Social Security and I’m 53 and having payed the max for years, my parents on Social Security are getting their checks. Anything short of that I’d back anyone or group who finds a constitutional law that allows “We the People” to remove members of Congress or our President by a vote of the people. Washington and especially President Obama should be eternally shamed for scaring our elderly by radical statements not to send checks out. Pleeze…
Ross Perot
July 14th, 2011
7:40 pm
Our first waffler er president finally made a stand on something. It just happened to be a really stupid thought. He must want to kick over the retiree bee hive. I guess he knows himself well… maybe he should go back to the world of indecisivness
Check these stats
July 14th, 2011
7:55 pm
Easy way to solve this entire issue. Raise the debt ceiling as stand alone legislation with no strings attached. The same way republicans did 7 times under Bush. More smoke and mirrors from ‘fiscal’ conservatives.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:11 pm
Obozo’s “my way or the highway” demands for more spending and higher taxes are going to prevent an agreement on raising the debt ceiling.
Why do Democrats hate America?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:12 pm
Time to eat your peas, parasites. The productive class is ready to sacrifice all the many benefits the government provides them, now it’s time you sacrifice too.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
8:14 pm
@RGB: You are making progress by being able to put two and two together. Now if you could just liberate your mind from Right Wing propaganda you probably would get your GED.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
8:18 pm
@Lil Barry Bailout it would be great if you started thinking for yourself and recognize that a tax cut for Exxon-Mobil is not a boost to your working class life, but helping a 90 year old widow to keep food on her table is the essence of the American spirit.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:20 pm
Ramzad: helping a 90 year old widow to keep food on her table is the essence of the American spirit.
—————————
Maybe you should try it, hypocrite.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
8:22 pm
People are really beginning to see the kind of people Republicraps are. selfish, racist, stupid, hypocrite, groupthinking zealots who can’t stand it that they are not the political ruling class
anymore.
Obama will not roll over. We will shut this country down before BP gets another corporate jet
on my nickel.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:24 pm
If you think your money paid for anyone’s private jet (other than government employees) then you might just be a libtard.
buck@gon
July 14th, 2011
8:28 pm
“Obama’s threats”
’nuff said. At least someone around the ajc has the intelligence to support things objectively.
Where’s the big Democrat knight in shining armor for the seniors now?
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
8:33 pm
@Little Barry Bailout: Goat; the tax rules are written so that BP benefits from buying a corporate jet whether it needs one or not. That means it does not pay its fair share of taxes, and it claims all
kinds of ridiculous write offs, and it is that culture of corporate welfare that you see as better than
allowing the 90 year old widow to keep her Social security check.
It is a perverted logic, but what do you know? Your ideas are handed to you.
buck@gon
July 14th, 2011
8:35 pm
Kyle,
The words “money in the coffers” need to be stricken from anyone’s piece when writing about the federal government. The fed is a derelict living hand-to-mouth, not in control of itself, who can’t ever find enough dough to sate his appetite. There is no money in the nonexistent coffers. Right now, in fact, the treasury is borrowing from the fed because the Chinese and Japanese don’t think investing in our debt is a good idea anymore. Someone please tell me why Moody’s hasn’t downgraded our debt already?
If anyone can explain to me how the treasury borrows money from the fed legitimately I’d like to know. Sounds to me like me creating money out of whole cloth by “borrowing” it from my wife.
Unfortunately, this derelict has police power, guns and the desire to rhetorically destroy you if you even act like responsibly with our money.
buck@gon
July 14th, 2011
8:38 pm
Ramzad,
Nice deflection.
The country might be broke, borrowing from itself, worried about inflation, default, rising food prices, unemployment, and YOU’RE worried that BP might buy another jet.
I find you “sentiments” …. pathetic.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
8:39 pm
@Buck. Buck say thank you to Bush, Cheney,Rumsfeld, Libby, et al. I bet you were not so cognizant when they were making a muck of the federal government.
You just hop up on the anti-federalist bandwagon now that it is fashionable. You are so spinelessly eloquent.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:40 pm
Ramzad: That means it does not pay its fair share of taxes.
—————————
I guess by your logic folks with costly life threatening diseases aren’t paying their “fair share” either, since their medical expenses are deductible.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:41 pm
$1.5 trillion deficits every year, a country about to go into default because it spends too much to pay its bills, 9.2% unemployment…your boy’s a failure.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
8:44 pm
Little Barry bailout: Maybe that deductibility came up because that person was working and paying their fair share for thirty five years before corporate greed gave him a dirty workplace and a dirty lungs.
BP’s Gulf clean up expense will be deductible too…Fact is they will get loss carrybacks and loss carry forward for the next 25 years. You are so gullible. we will all be dead before BP pays taxes again.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:46 pm
Ramzad hates cancer victims because they aren’t paying taxes to support the handout programs he’s depending on. Nice.
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
8:49 pm
According to reporting on Fox News the deceit is shrinking this year.
$4 trillion dollar deficit reduction deal on the table, Republicans say “no”.
Isn’t sad people who are so emotionally-invested in opposing President Barack Obama that they are willing to push this country into default. Their hatred so blinding that they believe the American people will vote him out instead of them?
Did you folks know that the Border Patrol can’t show up to work if we default. Neither can the FBI, or DEA, and the courts and prisons shut down? Yep, there is no emergency authorization for essential personnel in case of default like there is in case of other disasters.
Think of all them illegals that are going to be waiting to cross over, float over and fly over!
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:51 pm
Truth Squad: $4 trillion dollar tax-increase-now, bogus-not-gonna-happen-future-spending-cuts deal on the table, Republicans say “no”.
————————-
Good. Americans want real spending cuts now.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
8:52 pm
@Lil’ Barry bailout. No hand out programs here. That is your prejudice and you racist tendencies
coming out in your crude an undependable logic that since I reject Republicrap and see sense in
what Obama is saying- then I must be one of those inner city low life with few prospects but a government hand out, but you get worst when you trust you own opinions. Don’t bother embarrass
your capacity to think for yourself. You are too good at being wrong.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:55 pm
By your Idiot Messiah’s own words, he’s a failure:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Americans deserve better.”
Amen, bro.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
8:56 pm
Where are your Idiot Messiah’s spending cuts?
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
9:02 pm
@Lil’ Barry Bailout Whose Messiah? This is the kind of propaganda Republicrap likes to pitch around in their frustration and to grease their temper tantrums. My Messiah is Jesus Christ. Obama had ponied up almost $2.7 trillion of spending cuts over ten years. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the issue is not spending cuts it is elimination of tax breaks for zillionaires. Clearly, your puppet masters have not told you that yet.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
9:06 pm
“Obama had ponied up almost $2.7 trillion of spending cuts over ten years”
———————
Real cuts, or cuts in projected spending? You don’t even know do you? And the reason you don’t know is because your Idiot Messiah won’t tell you. All you know is that you’er permanently attached to your Idiot Messiah’s crank.
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
9:08 pm
Lil Barry still needs talking points because reality bites.
Yes Lil Barry, the American people want deficit reduction which includes an increase of taxes on the wealthy along with spending cuts. But the truth is that Cantor said that there are at least 60-80 House Republicans that aren’t going to vote for a debt ceiling increase no matter what.
That means y’all are going to need to go crawling to Nasty Nancy and beg for votes. Wonder if the Speaker will cry as he’s begging?
By the way, we all see how you dodged the question of what happens when there is no law enforcement, or courts, or air traffic controllers, and on and on? They will not have legal authorization to work.
Will you call on Republicans to amend the law so that essential personnel can stay on the job in case of default?
How many illegals are going to be able to come across when no one is on the job? Lord I hope no terrorists cross over? Y’all need to pass a law and do it now. Think all them anchor babies that’ll be born in the Winter thanks to Republicans!
Is your Obama-obsession so deep that you would put this nation’s safety in jeopardy as well as it’s full faith and credit?
Obzo to hold another smackdown tomorrow morning. His position only gets stronger the longer this goes on. The whole let’s blow it up and blame President Obama is working well for you guys. Americans blame Bush for the economy and Republicans for the potential default: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
9:09 pm
In what years do your Idiot Messiah’s pretend spending cuts occur? You don’t know, do you? Next year? Ten years from now?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
9:13 pm
Truth Squad: That means y’all are going to need to go crawling to Nasty Nancy and beg for votes.
——————-
Doubt it. Failing to pass your Idiot Messiah’s request to go $2.5 trillion further in debt means we get a balanced budget. On August 2. No messy constitutional amendment required.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
9:21 pm
The parasites don’t really give a hoot if their host country goes belly up trying to pay for their handout programs.
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
9:21 pm
Ok, maybe someone can decipher what it is Lil Barry just said because it makes no sense to me.
Meanwhile, are any conservatives here willing to call Congress and tell them to enact a law allowing essential personnel like the FBI, CIA, DEA, NSA, Border Patrol, prisons, air traffic controllers, to report to work in case of default? Yes or no is all that is required, no talking points please.
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
9:25 pm
As a Christian, I must say I find appalling Lil Barry’s repeating reference to “Messiah”. It has no place in political debate and is very close to blasphemy.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 14th, 2011
9:25 pm
I’ll have no problem seeing the Education department, EPA, OSHA, NEA, NLRB, Energy department, most of the IRS, Commerce Department all go bye-bye. They’re mostly filled with left-wing America-hating maggots.
JDW
July 14th, 2011
9:28 pm
Kyle wrote “Take another look at that chart: The gap between revenues and SS benefits (and, when they come due later in the month, interest payments) is in the tens of billions of dollars *every single day of the month*.
I looked quite closely the first time. Later in the month you are correct there is some wiggle room. However, if you will look a bit closer you will find that August 3 is the exception….as for the “Half True” rating…while I agree it is likely that the Social Security payments will be paid that wasn’t the question. Pelley specifically asked “ can you tell the folks at home that no matter what happens the Social Security checks will go out on August 3rd” I say again no one in their right mind would issue a guarantee to that question.
As for Politifact, calling it a half true….debatable but maybe…surely isn’t the same as your statement “Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program.”
You still get a “Pants On Fire” for that one.
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
9:42 pm
Still no one willing to step up and ask for a law allowing law enforcement to go to work in case of default?
What don’t you people understand about no guards at the borders? Who is going to guard the Unabomber and all the rest of prisoners in federal prisons?
I understand Lil Barry is a child now, shame on me for not realizing it before now, but surely there are some grown ups on this thing?
Hello?
Question Man
July 14th, 2011
10:26 pm
If agreement isn’t reached on the debt ceiling, won’t President Obama order the Treasury to continue printing money to avoid a default? He will also trim expenses and slow down some payments, but won’t most support this approach since it would be unconstitutional under Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment for the US to default? Doesn’t the Constitution obviously trump the Congressional debt ceiling limit? The financial markets will be unhappy, but might this be OK considering that default is avoided, the silly debt ceiling debates are no more, and Congress starts to learn that the US must live up to its commitments?
td
July 14th, 2011
11:05 pm
When Georgia and other conservative states were in financial problems they ordered every department to cut 10% each year for 4 or 5 years. They departments then froze hiring, pay raises and furloughed workers 1 to 2 days per month to balance the budget.
Why can not the federal government do the same?
buck@gon
July 15th, 2011
12:15 am
Ramzad,
Thanks for acknowledging me as, what did you say?, “cognizant”. Don’t know what my vertebrae have to do with anything.
You should get you some vertebrae or cognizance, whether Bush or Cheney are making a “muck” out of the federal government or not.
I know other conservatives who have been called: a “machine” (WF Buckley), a “smartass” (George Will), a “blowhard” (Rush Limbaugh), an “uncle Tom” (Thomas Sowell) and a “dunce” (Ronald Reagan). I expect the name-calling actually. Union people call us conservatives “selfish”, even as they are forcing through court action against say, Boeing, to shut down their huge plant in South Carolina.
You can sure bet that back then I was cognizant–and eloquent–just as I am now.
Just as a running observation, I made an observation to Jay Bookman earlier this same evening about liberals being less civil than conservatives–you know, stuff like “Republicrap” and “racist tendencies”. Could you let him know for me, that you use and like to use those words. Hey! You could replace Cynthia Tucker! She’s been stewing over the “racist tendencies” of her fellow Georgians for years!
Just curious: Are there any conservatives, Republican or no, who do NOT have racist tendencies?
buck@gon
July 15th, 2011
12:19 am
Question Man,
The constitution does not, can not and can not be construed as to spend money automatically by previous legislation, nor create spending anymore than it can be construed to declare war on anyone. It gives Congress that authority. Only a VERY liberal reading of the constitution could concoct Presidential or automatic authority to authorize spending.
If Obama does this, or tries to, then IMO, Congress should move to impeach.
Gale S
July 15th, 2011
2:38 am
Maybe it’s time we withhold all the retirement payments to Senate and Congress members. That would surely help wth the debt.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 15th, 2011
5:35 am
We have ten time the revenue needed to service the debt and avoid default coming in every month. Your Idiot Messiah is using scare tactics to keep the libtard sheeple frightened.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 15th, 2011
5:40 am
“The verdict of history, though on the way, is not quite at hand. The verdict of 2012 soon will be, and looms over everything. It’s enough to make a president, swaddled with a bad situation he made much worse, bang his supper dish with his spoon and throw his peas on the floor.”
mountain man
July 15th, 2011
6:12 am
“According to reporting on Fox News the deceit is shrinking this year.”
I think there is plenty of deceit still out there .
HDB
July 15th, 2011
7:31 am
The problem is that the GOP continues to pander to its wealthy constituents and persists in redistributive tactics that are NOT in the national interest and that are decimating the middle class! If Republicans increased the debt ceiling under Bush with CLEAN bills for GWB….and we KNOW that it’s required NOW, why don’t the House Republicans do likewise for President Obama?
Oh….I forgot….he’s a Democrat that takes Republican ideas and merges it into Democratic policy!!
Is Obama losing it? « Don Surber
July 15th, 2011
8:01 am
[...] Then he threatened not to send out Social Security checks unless Republicans raise taxes by $4 trillion. [...]
Moderate Line
July 15th, 2011
8:05 am
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
3:24 pm
Moderate Line: That’s a great list — it’s part of what I meant when I wrote there’d be a price to pay for not raising the debt ceiling. If Obama had listed those things, I’d have had no problem with it. I wonder why he didn’t?
+++
That’s a really lame stance. I wonder why the Republicans don’t say what they would cut. Maybe it’s because they want to blame Obama for whatever he decides knowing whatever he cuts will have an adverse impact.
Anything they do will have an immediate adverse impact. For example, the 63% I calculated does not include all the federal employess retirements.
You have substantial number contractors under contract which have to be paid by contract law. The 63% does not includde those numbers either. That means something in the 63% would be cut.
The Republicans can’t cut the ability to pay for Social Security and then say Obama is using scare tactics.
Considering all the things that by law need to be paid we would have to cut something from Defense, Social Security. Medicare, Interest Payments or the justice system. Which one?
real john
July 15th, 2011
8:42 am
Why are we even having this discussion. Anyone with a brain realizes that they will pass something before the deadline. Remember just a few short months ago, we were having the same discussion about a government shutdown. What happenend, something was passed at the last minute.
Just like the NFL lockout, a deal WILL be made. This is a game of chicken between the Dems and Repubs. Which side will have to make more concessions?? Who knows, but I’m so sick of hearing about this, it WILL get done
MrLiberty
July 15th, 2011
8:47 am
Moderate Line – Why not make huge cuts in ALL of them??
Let’s start with Defense. We have over 1000 bases in over 175 countries all around the globe. Bring all the troops home to defend america for a change and use the savings to take care of those who are completely dependent on SS and Medicare while we transition the rest of america completely out of these programs and shut them down eventually. If we cut the debt we can reduce the interest payments. And as for the Justice System, end the War on Drugs and we could release at least 30% of the federal prisoners who are just there for non-violent drug offenses that harmed nobody. Since we spend several dozen billion a year fighting this failed and immoral war, that would save us every year going forward.
Short answers to a question that demands far longer answers, but there can easily be ways out of our mess if we finally make the sound decision that it is NOT government’s job to take care of us from cradle to grave.
Several other major changes would also need to happen like introducing a free market in money so that the Federal Reserve would ultimately be eliminated and so that sound money that holds its value like gold or silver would take over. That would allow everyone to put away even small percentages of their income every year and be able to provide for a secure retirement. Prices primarily go up because the Fed inflates the money supply. That problem doesn’t happen under a gold or sound money system as you can’t print gold out of thin air.
Jeffrey
July 15th, 2011
9:03 am
Term limts, term limits, term limits. All these clowns care about is getting re-elected and spending a career in Congress. They enjoy a built in safety valve as if they lose an election, they can easily obtain a much higher paying job with the very same lobbyists who funded them in the first place…
Jeffrey
July 15th, 2011
9:04 am
BTW, does anyone actually read these, particularly the blogs in excess of a single paragraph? Curious….
sickofGOPscaremongers
July 15th, 2011
9:21 am
how about both parties start acting like adults. oh, wait – they’re just reflecting how the voters in this country are behaving.