When NO Social Security Checks Arrive, The Game Will Change DRASTICALLY

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 2:52 PM GMT
    I'm thinking about all of the older conservative Republican voters who won't receive their checks. Will they wish they never voted Republican then? Open your eyes old people, you voted yourself into poverty.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 3:12 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidI'm thinking about all of the older conservative Republican voters who won't receive their checks. Will they wish they never voted Republican then? Open your eyes old people, you voted yourself into poverty.


    An outright lie. It's remarkable that he would threaten to cut off grandma in a an attempt at partisan advantage. Does it bother you that that Obama is hyping up the potential entirely for political gain against the interest of most Americans?

    http://www.advancingafreesociety.org/2011/07/23/contrary-to-the-president-social-security-checks-are-not-at-risk/

    In his Friday night press conference, for the second time, President Obama raised the specter that Social Security checks might not go out if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling. His words: “Well, when it comes to all the checks, not just Social Security — veterans, people with disabilities — about 70 million checks are sent out each month — if we default then we’re going to have to make adjustments. And I’m already consulting with Secretary Geithner in terms of what the consequences would be.” Earlier he said in an interview on CBS News: “I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] 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.”

    He must not be consulting with his lawyers, because this attempt to scare Social Security recipients is without legal foundation.

    As recently explained in much more detail by legal scholars Mark Scarberry and Nancy Altman, and by the aptly-named Thomas Saving, a former public trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, , reaching the debt ceiling will not affect the ability of the Social Security Administration to pay its obligations.

    The Social Security trust fund holds about $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, which its trustees are legally entitled to redeem whenever Social Security is running a current account deficit. Thus, if we reach the debt ceiling (which I continue to think is a remote prospect, even if less remote than it seemed a week ago), this is what will happen. The Social Security trust fund will go to Treasury and cash in some of its securities, using the proceeds to send checks to recipients. Each dollar of debt that is redeemed will lower the outstanding public debt by a dollar. That enables the Treasury to borrow another dollar, without violating the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not a prohibition on borrowing new money; it is a prohibition on increasing the total level of public indebtedness. If Social Security cashes in some of its bonds, the Treasury can borrow that same amount of money from someone else.

    To be sure, a small portion of the money due from Treasury to the trust fund on the bonds is accrued interest. Payment of this portion will not have an effect on the debt ceiling, because the ceiling is calculated according to amount borrowed, not amount to be paid. That amount, however, is too trivial to affect the bottom line. Interest rates are low, and interest was last paid at the end of June.

    President Obama is therefore wrong when he says that failure to raise the debt ceiling might result in not sending out Social Security checks. Many bad things might happen, but not that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 3:47 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    wrestlervic saidI'm thinking about all of the older conservative Republican voters who won't receive their checks. Will they wish they never voted Republican then? Open your eyes old people, you voted yourself into poverty.


    An outright lie. It's remarkable that he would threaten to cut off grandma in a an attempt at partisan advantage. Does it bother you that that Obama is hyping up the potential entirely for political gain against the interest of most Americans?


    It's actually more accurate than the so-called "death panels" that the Republicans used to scare grandma about healthcare reform. Where was your ire then? Where was the WSJ editorial page then? Oh, that's right. You were engaging in the fearmongering.

    And is SS has $2.4 trillion in its coffers, how is it broke? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 3:53 PM GMT
    [sarcasm]
    That's a really good idea--redeem lower the debt ceiling by the amount in the SS trust fund to allow the government to borrow the same amount from others like China and pay THEM the interest instead.

    No more SS underfunding problem or benefits.
    [/sarcasm]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 3:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThe Federal government takes in far more money each month than it needs to pay out for interest on the debt, social security, medicare and medicaid, along with current active military personnel pay and veterans benefits.

    Period.



    You keep saying that even though it contradicts your entire stance that the government is broke, entitlements are bankrupt, etc. Both things cannot be true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 4:01 PM GMT
    Just ignore all the rest:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-social-security-and-other-federa/But doing so would mean delaying other payments -- for instance, Pell grants and other educational programs ($20.2 billion), salaries and benefits for federal employees ($14.2 billion), welfare and food programs ($9.3 billion), health and human services grants ($8.1 billion), housing assistance ($6.7 billion), and many other programs, including military active duty pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs program ($2.9 billion), Department of Justice funding that includes the FBI and federal courts ($1.4 billion) and IRS refunds ($3.9 billion).


    I mean, interest payments and Pentagon vendors are wayyyyy more important than students' education, food stamps, stupid federal courts that can't decide shit, federal employees like Congressmen who are such leechers of public funds, even tax refunds for you, SB. Bachmann et al. certainly think so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 4:05 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    wrestlervic saidI'm thinking about all of the older conservative Republican voters who won't receive their checks. Will they wish they never voted Republican then? Open your eyes old people, you voted yourself into poverty.


    An outright lie. It's remarkable that he would threaten to cut off grandma in a an attempt at partisan advantage. Does it bother you that that Obama is hyping up the potential entirely for political gain against the interest of most Americans?


    It's actually more accurate than the so-called "death panels" that the Republicans used to scare grandma about healthcare reform. Where was your ire then? Where was the WSJ editorial page then? Oh, that's right. You were engaging in the fearmongering.

    And is SS has $2.4 trillion in its coffers, how is it broke? icon_rolleyes.gif


    How is this even remotely like death panels? Are you deliberately being disingenuous or do you not understand the mechanics? Social security is already "invested" in US treasuries - which is an IOU from the US government. When you say it has $2.4 trillion in its coffers where do you suppose those coffers are?

    They certainly don't exist in any real sense anywhere because it is money that has already been spent and in the form of an IOU. The reason that social security checks can still be sent out is because it can "cash in" its securities for liquidity and therefore is not considered additional debt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 4:15 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidI'm thinking about all of the older conservative Republican voters who won't receive their checks. Will they wish they never voted Republican then? Open your eyes old people, you voted yourself into poverty.

    To quote Scarlett O'Hara: "That's something, Captain, Butler, you/ll NEVER hear!" Angry old Republicans admit they voted wrongly? Don't hold your breath. And even when they find their own services curtailed (right now they think they're only targeting minorities, unions, welfare recipients and illegal aliens) they'll find a way to blame the Democrats, even if all their "facts" are false. Being a Republican means never having to say you're wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 4:18 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    wrestlervic saidI'm thinking about all of the older conservative Republican voters who won't receive their checks. Will they wish they never voted Republican then? Open your eyes old people, you voted yourself into poverty.

    To quote Scarlett O'Hara: "That's something, Captain, Butler, you/ll NEVER hear!" Angry old Republicans admit they voted wrongly? Don't hold your breath. And even when they find their own services curtailed (right now they think they're only targeting minorities, unions, welfare recipients and illegal aliens) they'll find a way to blame the Democrats. Being a Republican means never having to say you're wrong.


    If the checks don't ship, it _is_ the fault of Obama for rejecting a short term deal rather than just one large probably ultimately flawed one. My guess is that you have no appreciation for the absurd irony of your post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 4:46 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidHow is this even remotely like death panels? Are you deliberately being disingenuous or do you not understand the mechanics? Social security is already "invested" in US treasuries - which is an IOU from the US government. When you say it has $2.4 trillion in its coffers where do you suppose those coffers are?

    They certainly don't exist in any real sense anywhere because it is money that has already been spent and in the form of an IOU. The reason that social security checks can still be sent out is because it can "cash in" its securities for liquidity and therefore is not considered additional debt.


    You're claiming that Obama is fear mongering but you had no such issue with the utter lies that Palin et al spewed during the HCR debate.

    And the government's "coffers" are it's ability to raise taxes to pay for what's necessary. In this case, the government owes SS $2.4 trillion and must raise taxes to meet that obligation.

    That is why raising the debt ceiling with no additional revenues (in addition to cuts) is a non-starter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 5:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this even remotely like death panels? Are you deliberately being disingenuous or do you not understand the mechanics? Social security is already "invested" in US treasuries - which is an IOU from the US government. When you say it has $2.4 trillion in its coffers where do you suppose those coffers are?

    They certainly don't exist in any real sense anywhere because it is money that has already been spent and in the form of an IOU. The reason that social security checks can still be sent out is because it can "cash in" its securities for liquidity and therefore is not considered additional debt.


    You're claiming that Obama is fear mongering but you had no such issue with the utter lies that Palin et al spewed during the HCR debate.

    And the government's "coffers" are it's ability to raise taxes to pay for what's necessary. In this case, the government owes SS $2.4 trillion and must raise taxes to meet that obligation.

    That is why raising the debt ceiling with no additional revenues (in addition to cuts) is a non-starter.


    What you wrote is typical of liberal confusion when it comes to finance.

    From earlier:

    The reason that social security checks can still be sent out is because it can "cash in" its securities for liquidity and therefore is not considered additional debt.


    Dumbass. The securities are in the form of government bonds, so where is the liquidity coming from? That's right. The US taxpayer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 5:48 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Dumbass. The securities are in the form of government bonds, so where is the liquidity coming from? That's right. The US taxpayer.



    Again, typical liberal confusion (sprinkled with personal insults).

    Read below (and read again, and again and again until you understand it):

    The Social Security trust fund will go to Treasury and cash in some of its securities, using the proceeds to send checks to recipients. Each dollar of debt that is redeemed will lower the outstanding public debt by a dollar. That enables the Treasury to borrow another dollar, without violating the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not a prohibition on borrowing new money; it is a prohibition on increasing the total level of public indebtedness. If Social Security cashes in some of its bonds, the Treasury can borrow that same amount of money from someone else.

    http://www.advancingafreesociety.org/2011/07/23/contrary-to-the-president-social-security-checks-are-not-at-risk/


    Where does the money that Treasury is giving to the SS Trust Fund originate?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 6:13 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Where does the money that Treasury is giving to the SS Trust Fund originate?


    Here's what would happen (simple example):

    1) Social Security redeems $1 at Treasury.

    2) Treasury has "paid off" $1 in debt.

    3) Treasury would then be $1 below the debt limit and can borrow that $1

    4) Treasury gives that $1 to Social security

    NOTE: #2 and #3 happen at the same time.


    No one is having trouble following that. The issue is that your constant harping that SS is insolvent does not match what you've laid out here. You should recall saying that Treasury would never be able to pay back the trust fund that is filled with IOUs.

    So what is it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 8:23 PM GMT
    Actually, it's more like (not counting interest yields and such):

    SS redeems $1 T-bond, and the Treasury has to borrow $1 cash from somewhere else to pay SS. To get that $1 cash, Treasury creates another T-bond. Right where you started, except that the new bond holder is not SS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 8:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidAh.... Social Security (a.k.a. the Ponzi scheme to end all Ponzi schemes) has absolutely no way of continuing in it's current form for much longer. And the fact that the trust fund is filled with IOUs is the least of its problems.

    Now that I have cleared all that up for you, please tell Komrade Obama that he can stop trying to scare Grandma and that the Social Security checks WILL continue to go out beyond August 2nd, agreement or no agreement.


    Incorrect. Social Security is not a ponzi scheme it's a social insurance program where taxes are paid by current workers to support current retirees.

    And now that you've established that you have actually no real position on the debt ceiling or SS or anything else, just an unrelenting need to find fault with the president, we can disregard anything else you post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 8:59 PM GMT
    If the republicans didn't want the debt ceiling to get this high they shouldn't have voted for two wars and a massively wasteful prescription drug plan putting money into their friends pockets.

    A statement from the treasury department:

    “This type of financial engineering is untested, may not work, and is of questionable legality,” a Treasury official told us. “It is not feasible for Treasury to borrow from the public, each day, the precise amount of Social Security payments due without breaching the debt limit. In addition, it is questionable whether it is legal to redeem Social Security trust fund assets in advance of payments. Moreover, this presumes that Treasury will have full access to the financial markets if the debt limit is not raised.”"

    This is not a simple issue, and involves a lot more than 4-5 steps that previous posters outlined. No one has a clear answer to this, and the going theory is that the treasury could continue paying SSI (every sane person knows they will) but the question is can they chose not to and honor other obligations instead of SSI debt swaps, which as they already said is not a feasible practice.

    Republicans have been the ones to say we need to cut and they are refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Well, the time is here for that. If they have the balls to do it, go for it. They will suffer major losses in a re-election and learn the hard way that this was not what the American people wanted, its what they wanted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 9:04 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidAnd now that you've established that you have actually no real position on the debt ceiling or SS or anything else, just an unrelenting need to find fault with the president, we can disregard anything else you post.

    I learned to disregard his posts some time ago, and rarely respond to them. My only motivation is to prevent right-wing political propaganda from poisoning this gay health & fitness site.

    But he really goes too far, and is too obvious. Him and a small extreme right-wing cadre who make every post something anti-Obama or anti-Democrat. You'd think they'd have some other areas of interest. What is their purpose for being here? Apparently right-wing political only, which is not the focus of this site.

    I've heard about right-wingers coming to disrupt gay sites. Whether these guys are them or not I can't say. But by their actions they sure fit the pattern I've read. What do you think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 9:08 PM GMT
    adam228 saidIf the republicans didn't want the debt ceiling to get this high they shouldn't have voted for two wars and a massively wasteful prescription drug plan putting money into their friends pockets.

    A statement from the treasury department:

    “This type of financial engineering is untested, may not work, and is of questionable legality,” a Treasury official told us. “It is not feasible for Treasury to borrow from the public, each day, the precise amount of Social Security payments due without breaching the debt limit. In addition, it is questionable whether it is legal to redeem Social Security trust fund assets in advance of payments. Moreover, this presumes that Treasury will have full access to the financial markets if the debt limit is not raised.”"

    This is not a simple issue, and involves a lot more than 4-5 steps that previous posters outlined. No one has a clear answer to this, and the going theory is that the treasury could continue paying SSI (every sane person knows they will) but the question is can they chose not to and honor other obligations instead of SSI debt swaps, which as they already said is not a feasible practice.

    Republicans have been the ones to say we need to cut and they are refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Well, the time is here for that. If they have the balls to do it, go for it. They will suffer major losses in a re-election and learn the hard way that this was not what the American people wanted, its what they wanted.





    Great post.

    The Repubs seem to have forgotten that they won control of the House last year largely because the Dems passed a HCR bill that wasn't supported by a majority of Americans.
    Now the Repubs are making the same mistake and pushing a debt deal which - as you point out and the polls show - is not what the American people want.

    Even after they claimed to care about respecting the will of We The People.
    That was obviously BS.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 26, 2011 9:47 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidThe Federal government takes in far more money each month than it needs to pay out for interest on the debt, social security, medicare and medicaid, along with current active military personnel pay and veterans benefits.

    Period.



    You keep saying that even though it contradicts your entire stance that the government is broke, entitlements are bankrupt, etc. Both things cannot be true.



    ah, the irony!

    southbeach jane owned by her own words.

    icon_exclaim.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 26, 2011 10:49 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidMy only motivation is to prevent right-wing political propaganda from poisoning this gay health & fitness site....What is their purpose for being here? Apparently right-wing political only, which is not the focus of this site.



    Oh, please, give me a freaking break. Please don't make me list the seemingly never ending threads started by you that have NOTHING to do whatsoever with "Health" and/or "Fitness" -- from "I Just Got Selected For Jury Duty" to "My Partners Birthday" --- so just save it! Everyone here has an equal right to be here, just as they have an equal right to voice their own opinion politically whether it be be far right, far left, or somewhere in between.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 26, 2011 11:04 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidI'm thinking about all of the older conservative Republican voters who won't receive their checks. Will they wish they never voted Republican then? Open your eyes old people, you voted yourself into poverty.



    Yet another ridiculous example of the Democrats trying to create hysteria where there isn't any need for any. Even if they don't raise the debt ceiling, Social Security checks will STILL go out to old people. Regardless, this is going to be solved -- though not without a great big dose of DRAMA and POLITICAL THEATER. Of course, Republicans are also guilty of their own share of "Scare Tactics", but when all is said and done, compromises will be reached, painful as they may be to both sides, and a deal will get signed. Anyone who thinks either party is going to be immune to scorn by the American people is not living in reality. Americans are equally pissed at both sides.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2011 1:49 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidAh.... Social Security (a.k.a. the Ponzi scheme to end all Ponzi schemes) has absolutely no way of continuing in it's current form for much longer. And the fact that the trust fund is filled with IOUs is the least of its problems.

    Now that I have cleared all that up for you, please tell Komrade Obama that he can stop trying to scare Grandma and that the Social Security checks WILL continue to go out beyond August 2nd, agreement or no agreement.


    Incorrect. Social Security is not a ponzi scheme it's a social insurance program where taxes are paid by current workers to support current retirees.

    And now that you've established that you have actually no real position on the debt ceiling or SS or anything else, just an unrelenting need to find fault with the president, we can disregard anything else you post.


    Yeah, and it ASSUMES that the fiscal climate will remain the same and that each generation will produce the needed revenue to support the one going into collecting mode.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2011 4:15 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    adam228 saidIf the republicans didn't want the debt ceiling to get this high they shouldn't have voted for two wars and a massively wasteful prescription drug plan putting money into their friends pockets.


    Bush: Added $4 trillion to the debt over 8 years.

    Obama-Pelosi-Reid: Added almost $5 trillion to the debt in 30 months.





    Are you merely getting your facts wrong, or are you deliberately lying?

    Bush added 4.97 trillion to the National Debt.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/rahm-emanuel/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/
    That rounds off the FIVE trillion - NOT four trillion.

    You Repubs and your "fuzzy math"!
    If you guys could just balance a check book we wouldn't be in this debt hole!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 27, 2011 7:05 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    Are you merely getting your facts wrong, or are you deliberately lying?

    Bush added 4.97 trillion to the National Debt.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/rahm-emanuel/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/
    That rounds off the FIVE trillion - NOT four trillion.

    You Repubs and your "fuzzy math"!
    If you guys could just balance a check book we wouldn't be in this debt hole!



    Rickrick, did your mind just go into some sort of brain freeze in 2008? Because you're seemingly stuck back there. In your world, the last 3 years of Obama seemed to have never happened...the 2 years of Democrats controlling The White House, House, and Senate seemed to have slipped your mind. I see you waking up in November 2012 with a new Republican President and all you will have to say is...Yep, you guessed it...

    B S
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2011 7:14 AM GMT
    wrestlervic saidI'm thinking about all of the older conservative Republican voters who won't receive their checks. Will they wish they never voted Republican then? Open your eyes old people, you voted yourself into poverty.


    Assumptions. It may well enforce their view of the negative impact Obama, is having on America and it's people. The republicans are doing the right thing to make Obama reduce his spending, just as we need to make Julyer, to stop wasting the Australian tax payers cash, and Obama has already wasted enough of that.