Social Security Expected to Dip Into Its Reserves This Year

In addition to the above, most average and ordinary partisans are playing the same game, for example; 6 GDP Growth forcasters recently published their 2nd quarter GDP growth projections, from 2.8% to 4.8%, thus, in an effort to glorify POTUS, which projected percentage Trumpeteers will be chanting?

 

Spending in FY2009 was because of the Great Recession Bush left, and nothing Congress or Obama did, as you've demonstrated so aptly with your failure to identify even one dollar in spending caused by any law or program the Dems passed.

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

Just another rapid partisan trying to blaaaaaaame Obaaaaaama for the Great Recession he inherited.

 

False but typical on your part to try and put words in other people's mouth when you can't refute the facts. I CLEARLY said the DEMOCRATS were running fiscal and budget policy having taken both house of the Congress on January of 2007 two years before the recession. I noted that one Senator Obama was a MEMBER of that Senate and supported those budgets and fiscal policy matters in rebuttal to your claims he didn't come to town until January of 2009.

And I repeat, their budget and stimulus just to name two, I have no other obligation to list every bill the results of their budget and fiscal policy is shown by the results.

So the Democrats sent their budget bill down to Texas for an ex-president to sign and he didn't sign it so it became law. Your assertions are getting more and more into the Twilight Zone you know. That is absurd.

By legislation. By passing measures to mitigate the effects of the slowdown/recession. By passing measures that would have gotten us into a full recovery and people back to work.

You are insinuating Congress has no power, no ability to effect economic outcome, no fiscal or budgetary control and this "hey don't blame it on us" excuse.

 

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.
The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending

"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."
Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

Enough said. They won and did exactly what they promised HUGELY increased spending.

 

[Edit] Sorry. You don't get to change what you said. What you said is a matter of record.

You claimed that the Democrats and Obama "ran things" starting in 2007.

Which is utter bullshit.

The Democrats didn't do anything that caused spending and the deficit in FY2009 to explode.

It was caused by the Great Recession Bush left, caused by the housing bubble that blew up to absurd levels and started tanking, during the entire time of which the Republicans controlled the Congress and the Administration.

*That* is controlling the government.

I repeat, the Democrats didn't do anything that caused spending and the deficit in FY2009 to explode.

It was caused by the Great Recession Bush left, caused by the housing bubble that blew up to absurd levels and started tanking, during the entire time of which the Republicans controlled the Congress and the Administration.

Proved by the fact that you cannot identify one program or law the Dems passed that caused the FY2009 spending or deficit increase, show by your failure to back up your here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206

Irrelevant. The Democrats didn't do anything that caused spending and the deficit in FY2009 to explode. Proved by the fact that you cannot identify one program or law the Dems passed that caused the FY2009 spending or deficit increase, show by your failure to back up your here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206

Inaccurate, partisan nonsense. First, the Dems couldn't pass a law on chewing gum without Bush's approval. Second, the Dems did pass the big tax cut Bush asked for in 2008, as well as the $700 billion bank bailout bill that Bush's administration wanted.

No.

I am insinuating that you, like the worst sort of intellectually dishonest partisan, are trying to blame Obama and the Dems for the spending and deficits caused by the Great Recession Bush left us, which itself was cause by the absurd housing bubble that blew up during "Mr. Ownership society's administration and while the "business can regulate itself" Republicans controlled the Congress.

The Dems did nothing to cause the spending and deficits to explode in FY2009, and neither did Obama.

Proved by the fact that when you were examined on your claims, you utterly failed to identify one law or program the Dems passed that added one dollar to spending or the deficit in FY2009.

You're utter failure to back up you claim and position is laid out for everyone to see here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206

 

Nope.

Let's look at Bluesguy's article and look at the text he disingenuously did *not* post for you, but I will:

Here is the text *Bluesguy's* source he doesn't want you to see. (His link is bad, but you can find the text he quotes from here: http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/)

Bush issued a veto threat on the bloated spending bills pending in Congress in late 2008. CQ estimated that the final spending bill “provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills” which is “about $19 billion more than Bush sought.” I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending. The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

So even Bluesguy's own source admits that in FY2009, only $31 billion (out of $535 billion spending increase from 2008 to 2009) gets credited to Obama.

The rest of the spending and deficit were caused by the Great Recession, proved by the Bluesguy's compete failure to identify even one law or program passed by the Dems that contributed even one dollar to FY2008 or FY2009 spending, shown here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...for-themselves.530373/page-46#post-1068987206

 

...

 

Interesting to see the way you look at my money. I don't have a financial adviser. (Or any of the many other titles for salesman)

So of the hundreds of thousands I have already paid into SS, how much of it does my family get if I get squished by a truck today?

Why do you have a such a hard time discussing this topic? You are 100% wrong when you claim that the only alternative to SS is homeless seniors living under the overpass. I never complained about paying taxes or helping those who can't do for themselves.

Since you are only using the word "Benefits" loosely, the same can be said for my employees, who receive benefits I do not. Your comment cancels itself out. I remember giving up on time with my wife, kids, and sleep and still did not end up with as much as my lowest paid employee at the end of the year. The government lacks respect for our labor and it shows.

I have 5 kids and work very hard to support them. I should not be forced to buy a bad insurance product.

 

Depends on how much you've contributed and old your kids are and your spouse. But based on the "hundreds of thousands" you have contributed, they are probably eligible for several thousand a month in benefits.

Take away their SS income and that's what will happen.

True, you employees receive the benefit of you the employer paying half.

With 5 kids you support they would eligble for in the neighborhood of $7500 a month in support benefits. But SS is social insurance, not private insurance.

 

You have a quarrel with everyone giving their money to those you don't think they should give it to?

 

Nope.

 

But I thought you were saying we were giving certain people too much money. Like those 1.5 million families who we give 24% of everything we give. I thought you were saying that we all were giving them more than they deserved or more than you thought appropriate.

 

You thought wrong.

 

So if I'm wrong then those 1.5 millions families who we gave 24% of everything we all gave got exactly the right amount of income?

 

I don't know what you are talking about. Who is the "we" you claim gave 24% of everything to 1.5 million families? I certainly didn't.

What I've claimed is that "trickle down" policies since the "Reagan revolution" have effectively redistributed income and wealth in this country from the middle class to the rich.

In 1980, the bottom 90% got 65% of the gross income and the top 1% a little less than 10%.

Today the bottom 90% get less than 50% and the top 1% over 20%.

 

~~~~~~
LBJ your favorite Democratic Party go to was the first president to raid Social Security Funds. As of 2012 over $2 Trillion have been technically stolen and have never been returned.

Lyndon Johnson on Social Security
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Lyndon_Johnson_Social_Security.htm
2012 -- Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund was a precedent set in 1968 by another progressive president, Lyndon B. Johnson, to help pay for the Vietnam War. To date, the federal government has borrowed over $2 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund to spend on other programs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Do you know anything about this? LBJ raided …
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgno...j-raided-social-security-for-vietnam-war.html
LBJ raided Social Security for Vietnam War. ... USING the SOCIAL SECURITY PENSION FUND FOR THE VIETNAM WAR ... Lyndon B. Johnson and his administration.

 

It was designed for families that no longer exist. My family would receive a whopping $255.00 if I got squished by a truck today. Earning restrictions prevent my wife from receiving anything and my kids are mostly grown up. (Yes, grown kids still need support!)

Since it is the law of the land and I have no choice, I am going to try to live past 100 so I can get my money back!!

 

That's all BS and you know it. You're basically touting the old BS line that the Trust Fund is "empty".

 

If you had gotten squished when your kids were young, SS would have paid your family survivor benefits of several thousand a month.

Good plan. It's better than life insurance where you have to plan to die early to get anything.

Like any other insurance, SS only pays if certain criteria are met. You can't really whine if you pay for disability insurance but never get anything because you're never disabled, or pay for life insurance but don't get anything because you don't die.

I paid beaucoup bucks for life insurance, never got a dime back.

There were many years I paid for health insurance and got very little in benefit relative to what I paid.

Does that make them a "bad deal"? No, because they would have provided a benefit if I needed it.

 

"We" is the people in the economy. That includes you and me and many, many other people. And we all gave 24% of everything we gave to 1.5 million families. You're saying that we shouldn't have?

 

You're statement makes no sense. I haven't given them anything, much less 24% of everything, and I doubt you have either. But maybe *you* have.

If you want to give your money to m/billionaires, that is up to you.

However, as far as whether we as a society should continue policies that have redistributed many trillions of dollars from the middle class to the rich, I believe I've made my opinions perfectly clear and stated the reason for them in precise detail.

 

We, collectively, can give our money to whomever we wish. We, collectively, give 24% of all we give to 1.5 million families. What makes you think that we, collectively, are giving the wrong amount?

 

Good trick getting people to come out against their own benefits. SS would be solvent if it wasn't raided every year.

 

The wealth went to the top because of financialization of the economy, courtesy of your beloved FED and it's money spigot.
Happened long before the crash, but you did cheer the FED as it rescued the 1%ers in the big wall street banks

 

There was never any money in the fund. It has always been spent and replaced with IOUs from the government