Social Security Expected to Dip Into Its Reserves This Year

Repealing and reversing the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, and stopping the redistribution of more and more of the nation's income and wealth to the rich won't hurt economic growth. It will help boost it. 70% of the economy is consumer spending, and the middle classes are the great engine of spending.

We need to refuel the middle classes and stop pampering m/billionaires.

 

Obama wasn't president and wasn't running things until Jan 2009.

Funny how conservatives like Bluesguy like to reinvent history to fit their ideology.

 

You could save me some time if you would closely read my posts. ha ha. So, I said hard work is necessary to get rich. By both the owner but just as important, the hard work of his workers who will not get rich being workers. So I never said to get rich one does not have to work hard. I did say hard work doesn't mean one will ever be rich.

I define rich as having more money than you can ever spend in numerous life times. Millions, billions. You and I are probably just middle class retirees.

Shadowstats has the jobless rate at 20 percent not the official advertised rate. So while if you use the official numbers, unemployment has went down, the official rate is not factual. Probably closer to 20 percent than 4. But down from 21.5 percent according to shadowstats.

 

OK so what. I didn't say President Obama, I said the Democrats were when it came to budget and fiscal matters starting in January 2007 and as you showed by 2009 they had it totally screwed up. Do keep repeating it.

 

“It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.”
-- David Stockman. Ronald Reagan's Director of OMB

Once again showing you believe government policies are there to satisfy your greed and avarice.

Because for some, more is never enough.

Remember when conservatives used to cite sources like "shadowstats" all the time?

 

OMG, you just said it in your last post:

Obama was not "running things" in 2007. Bush was. Much as you like to pretend there is a alternate Bluesguy history.

*I* showed not such thing. I showed how even conservative sources acknowledge that Obama inherited much of the spending and deficit along with the worst recession in 80 years when he took office.

You obviously didn't read my post, so I'll post it again. It doesn't show Democrats screwing anything up.

 

I didn't know cons used that site. I have since I found out it is only concerned with accurate stats not partisanship. They try to give the real picture regardless of what party is in power.

 

Well what do you mean by "hard work"? And it's not just hard work, it's willing to take risk and put yourself at risk financially. How many of the workers have mortgaged their homes and given it to the boss hoping the company makes money in order to get paid? Should the person who unloads by hand that boxcar of lumber which is hard work expect to get rich doing it? Of course not there are lots of people who could do that job just as well and that only doesn't produce revenue for the company.

And guess what, most people are willing to do what it takes to get there.

Well I dont know who they are or how they compile their numbers. The fact remains the latest jobs report showed there are more reported jobs available than reported people looking. Any able bodied person who is not working now is not trying very hard to get a job or being entirely too selective. Putting those people back to work and getting the LFPR back up should be the goals now.

 

Many cons cited it frequently to show that things were worse under Obama, and claimed the BLS data was fake.

Now of course the BLS data seems to be just fine.

[quoteI have since I found out it is only concerned with accurate stats not partisanship. They try to give the real picture regardless of what party is in power.[/QUOTE]

That's a dubious propostion, IMO. Shadow stats claimed the true UR in 2000 was about 10% or so?

Which IMO is ludicrous. If you didn't have a job in 2000 it was because you barfed on the prospective employer during the interview.

 

Again, I was asking what benefits you were referring to. I got articles you googled and a cheap shot instead.

If a private company ran things like the SS admin, they would be in prison. Until people can opt out, SS is theft.

 

It is very unlikely that any truck drivers or floor sweepers became millionaires by buying Home Depot stock out of their minimum wages. It's more likely that they tried to pay for health insurance and save some for retirement, benefits the company does not provide.

 

You are correct, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2008 supplemental appropriations were much higher than FY 2007, however, 2008 was an election year, and that explains it.

By the way, before Bush submitted his proposed 2009 Budget, he knew all economic indicators were down.....NBER told him. What did he do? He intentionally boosted his projected revenues which significantly reduced his projected deficit. Once again, Bush was an astute politician, correction; All POTUS are. .

 

There is no real evidence of any mismanagement at SSA. Indeed, it has always been one of the better run programs. I did read the sensationalized tabloid piece that is the sum total of your claims.

Of course, guys like you demand to "opt out". And you'll be the first to cry when you retire with no money in the bank.

Oh, and bear in mind that SSA is legally required to pay you your benefits.

Your financial advisor, on the other hand, is under no fiduciary obligation to work in your best interest at all.

 

I said SENATOR Obama and you tried to shift it to PRESIDENT Obama. I said nothing about PRESIDENT Obama. But are you denying he was one of the Democrats in the Senate starting in 2007? Are you saying he did not support those Democrat policies and budgets? I know you desperately attempt to divorce him of all role in it even though he was a member of that Senate but you don't get to rewrite history. Even though he was a junior Senator he was a Senator nontheless and you don't just inherit what you were part and parcel in creating.

Nope the DEMOCRATS were running budget and fiscal policy starting in January of 2007, they had the political power. It is your strange history that would require the Democrats after what 12 years of not controlling the Congress or either body of it took that power and just did Bush's bidding. It is quite laughable in fact and I have repeatedly shown you how they cut him out of those matters especially for FY2009.

And again thank you for showing how badly the Democrats had screwed things up by 2009 fully two years after they took that power.

 

That's a baseless whine.

When you posted that the self-employed pay the whole SS tax, I wrote: "Scores of millions are not. But as a self employed person you get lots of benefits they don't."

I wasn't referring to any benefit *I* get and didn't say anything about it. What I do is irrelevant. I never even said I was self-employed.

Thanks, but I like living in a country where we don't have hordes of old folk living under freeway overpasses and begging at stoplights. And so do a lot of other Americans.

And it's not theft at all. Taxes are the quid pro quo for living in a country that allows you to acquire unimaginable income and wealth. It's a pretty good deal.

 

Uh, Senator Obama IS President Obama. You thought they were two different guys?

The Senate doesn't run the country.

Nope with Bush in the WH the Democrats couldn't pass laws they wanted. You've heard of a veto perhaps? The the Administration administers the government. Which was Bush until Jan 2009.

Again you make this baseless claim.

When I asked Bluesguy to specify and itemize what the Dems supposedly did to increase spending and the deficit from 2007-09, he could not identify one law they passed or one dollar amount they added.

It's all baseless made up bullshit.

Here's the link to him dodging and failing for anyone to see for themselves:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206

 

And they hit a one year $400B deficit in 2004. But they realized they had erred in the slow phase in of the tax rate reductions and accellerated them fully for 2004 forward and tax revenus begain to roll in with an historic 15% increase in 2005 and the brought the deficit down to that paltry $161B for FY2007 their last budget.
Two years later the Democrats had it at $1,400B

Bush's FY2009 budget was DOA and never even considered in committee. There was a continuing resolution to keep government running through the ingruation the next year. The Democrats purposely held off the 2009 budget for either a Clinton or Obama presidency which ended up Obama. It was a Democrat president that signed the Democrat 2009 budget into law after including his own additional spending request in it.

 

Partisan nonsense.

When you ask Bluesguy to prove his claim and identify the law the Dems passed to increase the deficit, he cannot identify one law or one dollar amount they added.

It's flat out baseless bullshit. As demonstated here, showing Bluesguy's utter failure to back up his assertions.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206

But that won't stop him from repeating the same baseless, made up nonsense. Never does.

Of course Bush didn't want to sign the budget. He knew the tanking economy and Great Recession were going to blow a hole in the deficit and spending. So he passed the buck. That's the kind of guy he was.

 

You can't be President and Senator at the same time what's your point?

It has a huge role in the the fiscal and budge policy and when one party controls both houses and a lame duck president..........as I have already showed you repeatedly Bush was able to hold down some of their spending in 2008 but 2009 they cut him out.

Explain how Bush was supposed to veto the 2009 Ominbus Spending Bill.

Their budgets and spending, including the stimulus spending, results speak for themselves. And you do not have to address me in the third person.

 

Which according to the source you've cited on numerous occasions was about $31 billion dollars. The rest was spending and deficits cause by the economic recession or by actions Bush's administration did.

The vast bulk of the spending increase in FY2009 was for mandatory programs that the government has no discretion to no spend.

 

Lack of rebuttal noted.

The Democrats never sent him a budget to sign because they purposely held off passing one in anticipation of a Democrat president so explain your claim that Bush should have and could have vetoed it?

 

My point is you're slinging bullshit to claim Obama was running the government in 2007.

You haven't shown squat. You were asked to show what laws or programs the Democrats passed that caused the increase in spending, and you couldn't identify one dollar of additional spending the Democrats supposedly caused. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206

He didn't sign it. So the budget was on continuing resolution while he was in office until 2009.

Explain how the Democrats were supposed to prevent the mandatory spending increases caused by the GR.

False. You've utterly failed to show even one dollar of additional spending the Democrats caused.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206

 

Congress has the full authority to rescind any spending, but from one who tries to blame Bush for those deficits now to try and backtrack and claim well no one could do anything about it is quite laughable. The fact remains the Democrats BRAGGED about their increasing spending and cut Bush out completely for 2009 so they could get the higher spending he denied them in 2008 when he COULD have vetoed it.

 

this has been repeatedly refuted in dozens of threads.

 

Lack of legitimate argument noted.

It doesn't matter. The Democrats didn't add a dollar in spending with anything they did, as you so aptly demonstrated for the board.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206