Boehner rejects call to pass tax cuts now for <$250K

They aren't loans... ANd they don't require real-time payments out of the budget...

Something the Dog Said wrote: Once again, Social Security does not affect the deficit or the economy. The Feds DO NOT take the surplus. They BORROW the surplus with Treasury issued bonds which MUST be paid back. So unless you are advocating that the US government default on those Treasury instruments (which requires a majority vote of Congress), any changes to Social Security is not being done to solve the deficit.

Austerity is KILLING Europe, and unless they realize that it's time to INVEST in their economies instead of starving them, they're going to go off the cliff permanently. You CANNOT CUT your way to prosperity. Never have, never will...

Something the Dog Said wrote: Social Security is not adding one dime to the deficit. That is a smokescreen by Republicans. Any changes to Social security will not affect the economy or the deficit.

From factcheck.org...

Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute “one penny” to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.

President Barack Obama was closer to the mark than some of his Democratic allies when he said that Social Security is “not the huge contributor to the deficit that [Medicare and Medicaid] are.” That’s correct: Medicare and Medicaid consume more borrowed funds than Social Security, and their costs are growing more rapidly. But Obama’s own budget director, Jacob Lew, was misleading when he wrote recently that “Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.” That’s not true, except in a very narrow, legalistic sense, and doesn’t change the fact that Social Security is now a small but growing drain on the government’s finances.

Payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments regularly until 2010. But the fact is that Social Security has now passed a tipping point, beyond which the Congressional Budget Office projects that it will permanently pay out more in benefits than it gathers from Social Security taxes. The imbalance is made even larger this year by a one-year “payroll tax holiday” that was enacted as part of last year’s compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts. The lost Social Security tax revenues are being made up with billions from general revenues that must all be borrowed. The combined effect is to add $130 billion to the deficit in the current fiscal year.

Don’t be confused by the fact that the trust funds are projected to continue growing for several more years. That’s because Treasury must still credit interest payments to the funds on the borrowings from earlier years. But unless taxes are increased or other spending is cut severely, the government will have to borrow from the public to pay the interest that it owes to the trust funds.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

And here is a recent USA Today editorial on the subject...

Democrats, of course, have a political interest in fudging the issue to keep Social Security out of negotiations over the year-end "fiscal cliff" of abrupt tax hikes and spending cuts. "I am not going to be part of having Social Security as part of these talks relating to this deficit," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters this month.

Seriously? How exactly do Democrats expect Republicans to bend on their destructive refusal to raise taxes if Democrats won't bend on their destructive refusal to trim unsustainable benefit programs?

Social Security represents more than one-fifth of federal spending, much too big to ignore. The likeliest fixes are well known. These include raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, tying cost-of-living adjustments more closely to actual inflation, and bumping up the retirement age for able-bodied future retirees. The sooner these changes are made, the less painful they will be.

But shoring up the program starts with politicians telling the truth about how Social Security works. That's something the White House and congressional Democrats apparently think the public can't handle.

http://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/27/social-security-fiscal-cliff/1730631/

Yes... Like I said:

"These include raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, tying cost-of-living adjustments more closely to actual inflation, and bumping up the retirement age for able-bodied future retirees. The sooner these changes are made, the less painful they will be."

Raising the retirement-age is not going to fly....But I can see the other points as being negotiable....

PITG,
Don't confuse the sheeple with facts, they have their talking points, (Maybe from Ambassador Rice?) incorrect as they are and can't be persuaded. SS is theirs because they paid into it. Even if not enough was being pulled out and they didn't know people would be living well into their 70's, plus mission creep. SS is doing much more than it was originally intended to do.

LJ,
Raising the retirement age has already happened. You get full benefits at a lower age than I do.

"LJ,
Raising the retirement age has already happened. You get full benefits at a lower age than I do."

And you think I didn't know that?.... Whoa?!? Who knew?!?!?! We'd better alert the media....

Like I said, raising the retirement-age is not going to fly....But I can see the other points as being negotiable....

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Social Security is not adding one dime to the deficit. That is a smokescreen by Republicans. Any changes to Social security will not affect the economy or the deficit.

From factcheck.org...

Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute “one penny” to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.

President Barack Obama was closer to the mark than some of his Democratic allies when he said that Social Security is “not the huge contributor to the deficit that [Medicare and Medicaid] are.” That’s correct: Medicare and Medicaid consume more borrowed funds than Social Security, and their costs are growing more rapidly. But Obama’s own budget director, Jacob Lew, was misleading when he wrote recently that “Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.” That’s not true, except in a very narrow, legalistic sense, and doesn’t change the fact that Social Security is now a small but growing drain on the government’s finances.

Payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments regularly until 2010. But the fact is that Social Security has now passed a tipping point, beyond which the Congressional Budget Office projects that it will permanently pay out more in benefits than it gathers from Social Security taxes. The imbalance is made even larger this year by a one-year “payroll tax holiday” that was enacted as part of last year’s compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts. The lost Social Security tax revenues are being made up with billions from general revenues that must all be borrowed. The combined effect is to add $130 billion to the deficit in the current fiscal year.

Don’t be confused by the fact that the trust funds are projected to continue growing for several more years. That’s because Treasury must still credit interest payments to the funds on the borrowings from earlier years. But unless taxes are increased or other spending is cut severely, the government will have to borrow from the public to pay the interest that it owes to the trust funds.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

And here is a recent USA Today editorial on the subject...

Democrats, of course, have a political interest in fudging the issue to keep Social Security out of negotiations over the year-end "fiscal cliff" of abrupt tax hikes and spending cuts. "I am not going to be part of having Social Security as part of these talks relating to this deficit," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters this month.

Seriously? How exactly do Democrats expect Republicans to bend on their destructive refusal to raise taxes if Democrats won't bend on their destructive refusal to trim unsustainable benefit programs?

Social Security represents more than one-fifth of federal spending, much too big to ignore. The likeliest fixes are well known. These include raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, tying cost-of-living adjustments more closely to actual inflation, and bumping up the retirement age for able-bodied future retirees. The sooner these changes are made, the less painful they will be.

But shoring up the program starts with politicians telling the truth about how Social Security works. That's something the White House and congressional Democrats apparently think the public can't handle.

http://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/27/social-security-fiscal-cliff/1730631/

What you keep omitting is that Social Security is not adding to the deficit. It is a fact that Congress has borrowed from the surplus by purchasing Treasury issued instruments which must be paid back. Changing Social Security will not affect that debt owed to the Fund. The "fix" being proposed is to make it more difficult for those who have paid into the fund to collect from it so that a surplus still continues it so that Congress can continue to "borrow" from it. That is deceptive and dishonest. Congress simply needs to pay off the debt owed to the fund which will make the fund viable well past 2030 and probably well beyond that time. Social Security simply is not adding one single dime to the deficit. The interest payments would be due regardless of whether the funds were borrowed from the Trust Fund or from China or from Wall Street.

Social Security is not the problem here, it is Congress trying to renege on it's financial obligations to Social Security.

So the Dog thinks that if SS payments were cut to seniors because they weren't taking enough in, that Congress wouldn't be willing to fix that with new debt issues right away? Think you would lose re-election if you voted to stop sending checks to seniors, or cutting them in half?

We saw the GOTP lose the election by threatening to voucherize Medicare and cut benefits... How'd that work out for ya?

FredHayek wrote: So the Dog thinks that if SS payments were cut to seniors because they weren't taking enough in, that Congress wouldn't be willing to fix that with new debt issues right away? Think you would lose re-election if you voted to stop sending checks to seniors, or cutting them in half?

Nope, that is not what I think and that is not what I said. You are deliberately distorting my remarks. Once again, Social Security is not adding a single dime to the deficit. That you and the Republicans are trying to do is to prevent those who have paid into the system from collecting that which is due to them so that a surplus would continue which could be raided to pay for more tax cuts to the wealthy.

Something the Dog Said wrote: What you keep omitting is that Social Security is not adding to the deficit. It is a fact that Congress has borrowed from the surplus by purchasing Treasury issued instruments which must be paid back. Changing Social Security will not affect that debt owed to the Fund. The "fix" being proposed is to make it more difficult for those who have paid into the fund to collect from it so that a surplus still continues it so that Congress can continue to "borrow" from it. That is deceptive and dishonest. Congress simply needs to pay off the debt owed to the fund which will make the fund viable well past 2030 and probably well beyond that time. Social Security simply is not adding one single dime to the deficit. The interest payments would be due regardless of whether the funds were borrowed from the Trust Fund or from China or from Wall Street.

Social Security is not the problem here, it is Congress trying to renege on it's financial obligations to Social Security.

I didn't omit anything, I simply quoted from factcheck.org. And they clearly state and show that Social Security does add to the deficit. Look at the graph from the CBO and read the article.

Since 2010 Social Security payments have exceeded revenue from payroll taxes. The government is still making those payments even though they don't have enough revenue. They can't take the shortfall from the trust fund because there is no cash there, just treasury bonds. So the government is borrowing money to pay Social Security recipients. Borrowed money adds to the deficit.