Social Security Expected to Dip Into Its Reserves This Year

You really do like to cling to that $161 billion lie, don't you.

Of course, that number does not include Mr Bush's unnecessary, unprovoked and disasterous wars.

You always conventiently leave that out.

Then you turn right around and attack Obama for the first deficits in FY 2009 (which began four months before Obama became President).

Of ocurse, you deliberately left out the fact that Obama eliminated the cynical Bush.GOP game of listing the costs of their war "off the books", which inflated the number by half a billion with the stroke of a pen.

You also deliberately leave out the fact that three quarters of a million people were losing their jobs every MONTH at the time, swelling the roles of unemployement and medicaid. But that doesn't build your narrative. So you delibberately leave that out , too.

This isn't the first time you've been called out on this cynical and easily debunked lie. And I'm sure you'll go rigth on peddling this myth.

But I am curious to know how Obama increased Federal spending by 10% in 2008, considering he wasn't President.

 

I work with a lot of folks that want to feel like they are doing a lot of work. They manage 100% of all transactions. The overall output of their work is low. They are unproductive and often miss something very important due to looking at everything. Folks that actually care about the outcome as opposed to the feelings they get from intentions concentrate on managing exceptions and automate the rest. You want to force the confiscation of 12.4% of every American's earnings in order to prevent the unfavorable outcome of a fraction of the population. Let's focus on programs that are already in place to help the poor to help the poor, and let's let private retirement instruments handle retirement because they are way more efficient at wealth creation.

 

Lucky how? Do you guys realize how insurance companies have built hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth?

 

Read all Bush's supplemental requests, and billions were approved by a republican congress, and spread over three years.

Bush was a master at washing his hands, for example; Yes, he publicly and repeatedly ask Congress to oversee Freedie and Fannie, however, several times he whispered in Franklin Raines' ears "Give me another million mortgages"

 

What do insurance companies have to do with investing your savings into company stock?

 

If you were self employed, you'd know.

 

Partisan nonsense.


The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

 

Humor me.

 

Huh. You claim you are self-employed, and yet you claim you have no idea of any benefits a person has being self employed.

You cannot identify even one?

Imagine that.

 

70% of GDP is consumer spending. You still think giving more and more of the nation's income and wealth to stick in their offshore accounts is growth.

How absurd.

 

So what?

Depends on your age and health.

 

I don't see how a reasonable person could extract that from my post. I am simply asking what benefits you spoke of.

 

What on earth are you yammering about now? I never said anything about whether SS is a "contribution." That is not what we are talking about at all.

Try to keep up.

 

Since you say you know the benefits, what do you need me to spell them out to you for?

My point was simply that while self-employed people pay the entire SS tax, they also get other benefits that can more than offset it.

Since you now agree with me, exactly what the benefits are is irrelevant.

 

I disagree with your opinion for reasons stated. History shows otherwise.

 

Why can't you answer a simple question about your own post? I may agree with you, I may respectfully disagree as soon as I know what benefits you were talking about.

 

It surely does. And since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the m/billions have gotten it.

 

Of course I can.

It's just bizarre that someone who claims to be self-employed would have no clue of the benefits you get from self employment.

Here's some them:

10 Tax Benefits For The Self-Employed
https://www.forbes.com/sites/invest...-benefits-for-the-self-employed/#71da126e4291

10 Benefits Of Being Self-employed
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/10-benefits-being-self-employed.html

12 Reasons Why You're Better Off Being Self-Employed - Bidsketch
https://www.bidsketch.com/blog/everything-else/self-employed-vs-employed/

10 Tax Deductions & Benefits for the Self-Employed
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/09/self-employed-tax-deductions.asp

5 Benefits of Self Employment
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-gellerman/5-benefits-of-self-employ_1_b_8115936.html

11 Financial Benefits of Being Self-Employed
https://www.doughroller.net/small-business/11-financial-benefits-self-employed/

 

Wealth and income that was created by their labor not because it was simply transferred from someone else to them.

You are the one proposing giving people something not me. And the earnings on money in offshore accounts is subject to income taxes.

Again

But you turn around and tax away those increased profits, what they EARN which was not GIVEN to them as you try to frame it.

 

What are you babbling about now? I said nothing about the recession.

My post was about how over the past 35 years, since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, virtually all the economic growth and prosperity has gone to the rich, and virtually none to the bottom 90% or working Americans.

 

Nonsense. Reagan's "trickle down" revolution was specifically designed to make the rich richer, sold on the silly claim that it would "trickle down" to the middle classes.

It didn't "trickle down."

70% of GDP is spending. We don't need to run up the deficits to give billions more to the m/billionaires to stick in their offshore accounts.

 

They are included in the final deficit numbers for the years in the OMB tables. If you are in particular talking about for the wars in 2007 it was $88B.

 

Once again thank you for showing how badly the Democrats, including Senator Obama, ran things after they took over the Congress January of 2007 two years before all these dire numbers you are posting about the budget and spending. Their policies failed to mitigate the effects of the slowdown and then recession and then after 2009 failed to get us into a full recovery blowing past the unemployment numbers they promised from their failed stimulus.

Keep it up!

 

There was not "trickle-down" it's called supply side and it worked quite well and workers don't have a claim to a certain percentage of all income earned of course the more successful are going to earn more and faster they are the innovators not simple labor and yes the money in their off shore accounts is taxed.

Once again showing you believe the tax system is there to satisfy your envy and jealousy of the more successful.