Forget the Fiscal Cliff

This same one...

Lesson for Reporters: Social Security Does NOT Add to the Budget Deficit

Associated Press decided to use a "Fact Check" to wrongly tell readers that Social Security adds to the budget deficit. The piece acts as though Social Security's impact on the budget is somewhat mysterious, with supporters of the program, like Representative Xavier Becerra and Senator Bernie Sanders, being confused into thinking that the program doesn't add to the deficit, even though it really does.

There actually is not much mystery here to those familiar with government budget documents. There are two different measures of the deficit. There is the unified budget deficit, which adds in the payroll taxes collected for Social Security, just like any other source of revenue, and treats the benefits paid out by Social Security just like any other expenditure. In this measure, Social Security will add to the deficit in any year in which its benefit payments exceed its tax collections. (This is the case, even if the fund still has a surplus due to the interest it collects on the government bonds it holds, although it means that Social Security is contributing to the deficit because it is spending some of the interest it has earned.)

However there is also the on-budget deficit, which reflects the fact that Social Security is not supposed to be counted as part of the budget. This mysterious budget can be found in just about every single budget document the government publishes (e.g. here, Summary Table 1), saving arithmetically challenged reporters the need to subtract out Social Security taxes and spending from the unified budget. (The on-budget deficit also corresponds to the debt subject to the legal limit, which has played such a prominent role recently.)

Under the law, Social Security cannot possibly contribute to the on-budget deficit. It can only spend money that has been collected from the designated payroll tax or from the investment of past surpluses. (The money from general revenue to make up for the temporary payroll tax cut the last two years is an exception to this rule.) If benefit payments exceed current revenue and the money available in the trust fund, as the Congressional Budget Office projects will happen in 2038, then Social Security would not be able to pay full scheduled benefits. It could not force the government to increase its deficit.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/bea ... et-deficit

Once again...[sigh]...From the Center for Economic and Policy Research...


Which is what DOG already told you... And what I already posted...

The bottom line is I still HOPE the GOTP is stupid enough to let it "go off the cliff".... That's a win/win for the Dems...

Oh, and there's this... From Saint Ronnie Raygun: (Go to the 1:04 mark...)

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49263362#50032860

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is an American progressive economic policy think-tank based in Washington, DC, founded in 1999. CEPR works on Social Security, the US housing bubble, developing country economies (particularly Latin America), and gaps in the social policy fabric of the US economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research

So you prefer a "progressive" source over factcheck.org?

Like I said, I haven't picked and choosed from factcheck.org as you claimed. Have you?

That article was in response to the first factcheck article from 21 months ago. Factcheck has just posted a new article which I linked even futher supporting what they said before.

So specifically, how is factcheck wrong with this new article? Or do you have to wait for CEPR to tell you? Do you want to pick and choose from factcheck.org?

Again, this is a joke because Medicare is the big beast regarding the deficit, and the Dems want it off the table too. They are using Social Security to just play word games because they can't do that with Medicare. We have a unified budget now where everything is in the general fund (since LBJ I think). Borrowing is borrowing with a unified budget, and that adds to the deficit/debt.

So, you selectively choose a "factcheck.org" post, when it's rarely given any creedence, over what Ronnie Raygun said, and what the Center for Economic and Policy Research said?

Why, yes...I DO take my sources over yours.

You asked for my "proof"...I just gave it to you... I couldn't possibly care if you choose to ignore it.

Oh, and I found this just now:

The Giant Lie Trotted Out by Fiscal Conservatives Trying to Shred Social Security
Social Security hustlers use the life expectancy argument to justify gutting America's best-loved program.

Trying to convince the public to cut America’s best-loved and most successful program requires a lot of creativity and persistence. Social Security is fiscally fit, prudently managed and does not add to the deficit because by law it must be completely detached from the federal operating budget. Obviously, it is needed more than ever in a time of increasing job insecurity and disappearing pensions. It helps our economy thrive and boosts the productivity of working Americans. And yet the sharks are in a frenzy to shred it in the upcoming “fiscal cliff” discussions.

The most popular red herring Social Security hustlers have unleashed into the waters of public discourse has grown into such a massive whale of a lie that liberals frequently subscribe to it. The idea goes like this: We need to somehow “fix” Social Security because people are living longer – “fix” in this context being code for “cut.” Two groups stand to benefit in the short-term from such a scheme: the greedy rich, who do not want to pay their share in taxes, and financiers, who want to move towards privatizing retirement accounts so they can collect fees. As for the masses of hard-working people who have rightfully earned their retirement, the only “fix” is the fix they will be in if already modest benefits are further reduced.

Here are five clear reasons why the life expectancy argument is nonsensical, counterproductive and based on a pack of lies.

1. Social Security’s original designers considered rising life expectancy.

On our red-herring tour, let’s start with the oft-repeated claim that the original designers of the program did not consider rising life expectancy in their calculations. Fortunately, public records pertaining to the lengthy and detailed discussions of the Roosevelt administration’s Committee on Economic Security (CES), tasked with constructing proposals for Social Security, are available for anyone to see. It is absolutely clear from the record that the designers knew that the number of people over the age of 65 was going to increase and that people were going to live longer.

2. Life expectancy gains since 1935 have been modest.

Another popular argument for cutting Social Security by raising the retirement age assumes a vast difference in human longevity between 1935 and today. You’ll hear this group of hustlers claiming that life expectancy for Americans was less than 62 years in 1935, and now it's more than 77 years, so the program must be inadequate.

In reality, the average life expectancy once a person has reached the age 65 has increased only a modest five years on average since 1940 . Makes a big difference in how you look at retirement: (See tables)

3. The Greenspan Commission already raised the retirement age two years.

Back in 1983, just as Reagan was ushering in the destructive era of supply-side economics, the Social Security hustlers conspired to raise a great hue and cry about the program, which led to the creation of the Greenspan Commission. The Commission looked at the future increase in retired Baby Boomers and also considered increases in overall life expectancy. The result? People like me who were born after 1960 will have to wait until they're 67 to collect full benefits. If you’re younger than 52, two years of your retirement were taken away in the name of “permanently fixing Social Security.” For those a bit older you've had one year shaved off.

4. Longevity gains have gone mostly to high earners.

Exhaustive research has clearly demonstrated that income inequality leads to poorer health among people who are not well-off, and that gains in life expectancy have primarily gone to high income workers. A report in the New York Times , “ Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation ” explains that while longevity for the whole country has gone up, affluent people have gained more, and this has cause a widening gap in life span.

5. Life expectancy rises are likely to slow in the future.

The Social Security hustlers like to make wild predictions that life expectancy will grow in the future at a rapid rate and that our children and grandchildren will be living up to 10 years longer than we do. As we’ve seen, when you’re talking about life expectancy after age 65, gains since Social Security was originally designed are only five years—and those gains are largely among the well-off.

The truth is that there’s not much reason to think that giant increases in life expectancy are going to happen for the vast majority of people – even the more affluent.

Conclusion:
You will be hearing lots of convincing-sounding rhetoric on this topic in upcoming weeks --often from Democrats - including the notion that we should be means-testing Social Security for longevity among high-income earners. That plan plays into the mythology that the program is somehow broken and needs to be "fixed." It also plays into the game of fiscal conservatives who know full well that means testing will diminish support, which is why they have been ardently pushing it for 50 years. It's yet another red herring. Social Security is not contributing to the deficit, and if -- and that's a big if -- a tweak is needed down the road, we can easily accomplish that by raising the cap on payroll taxes, which stands just above $100K. In reality, there is absolutely no sound justification for doing anything now. The bottom line is that raising the retirement age and making changes based on longevity does not pass the test of morality, logic, or sound economics.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... page=0%2C0

And yes, this article is definitely from a "slanted" source... And yes, I'll believe the facts and charts presented here over a "factcheck.org" article in this case.

I want to FUND IT...NOT cut it... The ways to do it have been stated here, and links provided that would show the minimal impact of doing so.

LadyJazzer wrote: So, you selectively choose a "factcheck.org" post, when it's rarely given any creedence, over what Ronnie Raygun said, and what the Center for Economic and Policy Research?

Why, yes...I DO take my sources over yours.

You asked for my "proof"...I just gave it to you... I couldn't possibly care if you choose to ignore it.

Oh, and I found this just now:

The Giant Lie Trotted Out by Fiscal Conservatives Trying to Shred Social Security
Social Security hustlers use the life expectancy argument to justify gutting America's best-loved program.

Trying to convince the public to cut America’s best-loved and most successful program requires a lot of creativity and persistence. Social Security is fiscally fit, prudently managed and does not add to the deficit because by law it must be completely detached from the federal operating budget. Obviously, it is needed more than ever in a time of increasing job insecurity and disappearing pensions. It helps our economy thrive and boosts the productivity of working Americans. And yet the sharks are in a frenzy to shred it in the upcoming “fiscal cliff” discussions.

The most popular red herring Social Security hustlers have unleashed into the waters of public discourse has grown into such a massive whale of a lie that liberals frequently subscribe to it. The idea goes like this: We need to somehow “fix” Social Security because people are living longer – “fix” in this context being code for “cut.” Two groups stand to benefit in the short-term from such a scheme: the greedy rich, who do not want to pay their share in taxes, and financiers, who want to move towards privatizing retirement accounts so they can collect fees. As for the masses of hard-working people who have rightfully earned their retirement, the only “fix” is the fix they will be in if already modest benefits are further reduced.

Here are five clear reasons why the life expectancy argument is nonsensical, counterproductive and based on a pack of lies.

1. Social Security’s original designers considered rising life expectancy.

On our red-herring tour, let’s start with the oft-repeated claim that the original designers of the program did not consider rising life expectancy in their calculations. Fortunately, public records pertaining to the lengthy and detailed discussions of the Roosevelt administration’s Committee on Economic Security (CES), tasked with constructing proposals for Social Security, are available for anyone to see. It is absolutely clear from the record that the designers knew that the number of people over the age of 65 was going to increase and that people were going to live longer.

2. Life expectancy gains since 1935 have been modest.

Another popular argument for cutting Social Security by raising the retirement age assumes a vast difference in human longevity between 1935 and today. You’ll hear this group of hustlers claiming that life expectancy for Americans was less than 62 years in 1935, and now it's more than 77 years, so the program must be inadequate.

In reality, the average life expectancy once a person has reached the age 65 has increased only a modest five years on average since 1940 . Makes a big difference in how you look at retirement: (See tables)

3. The Greenspan Commission already raised the retirement age two years.

Back in 1983, just as Reagan was ushering in the destructive era of supply-side economics, the Social Security hustlers conspired to raise a great hue and cry about the program, which led to the creation of the Greenspan Commission. The Commission looked at the future increase in retired Baby Boomers and also considered increases in overall life expectancy. The result? People like me who were born after 1960 will have to wait until they're 67 to collect full benefits. If you’re younger than 52, two years of your retirement were taken away in the name of “permanently fixing Social Security.” For those a bit older you've had one year shaved off.

4. Longevity gains have gone mostly to high earners.

Exhaustive research has clearly demonstrated that income inequality leads to poorer health among people who are not well-off, and that gains in life expectancy have primarily gone to high income workers. A report in the New York Times , “ Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation ” explains that while longevity for the whole country has gone up, affluent people have gained more, and this has cause a widening gap in life span.

5. Life expectancy rises are likely to slow in the future.

The Social Security hustlers like to make wild predictions that life expectancy will grow in the future at a rapid rate and that our children and grandchildren will be living up to 10 years longer than we do. As we’ve seen, when you’re talking about life expectancy after age 65, gains since Social Security was originally designed are only five years—and those gains are largely among the well-off.

The truth is that there’s not much reason to think that giant increases in life expectancy are going to happen for the vast majority of people – even the more affluent.

Conclusion:
You will be hearing lots of convincing-sounding rhetoric on this topic in upcoming weeks --often from Democrats - including the notion that we should be means-testing Social Security for longevity among high-income earners. That plan plays into the mythology that the program is somehow broken and needs to be "fixed." It also plays into the game of fiscal conservatives who know full well that means testing will diminish support, which is why they have been ardently pushing it for 50 years. It's yet another red herring. Social Security is not contributing to the deficit, and if -- and that's a big if -- a tweak is needed down the road, we can easily accomplish that by raising the cap on payroll taxes, which stands just above $100K. In reality, there is absolutely no sound justification for doing anything now. The bottom line is that raising the retirement age and making changes based on longevity does not pass the test of morality, logic, or sound economics.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... page=0%2C0

And yes, this article is definitely from a "slanted" source... And yes, I'll believe the facts and charts presented here over a "factcheck.org" article in this case.

Like I said, all you can do is divert. I never questioned Social Security. I just posted that it DOES contribute to the debt. Your link has little to do with this discussion.

And again, Medicare contributes much more to the deficit/debt. But you just keep diverting and can't reply to that point. Why do the Dems use word games about Social Security, but can't discuss Medicare?

If you think alternet is fair, then thedailycaller is of equal value. Not that I think either is fair and balanced.

I'm glad you finally admit you don't believe factcheck.org over your biased sources. You might as well include snopes.com too so we can just get it out that you are not interested in any site that tries to be balanced and fair, or questions you ingrained idealogy.

I mean really; if you pick alternet.com over factcheck.org, how can you have any integrity if you attack a conservative (not that I am one) if they quote from national review, washington times, etc.. and I'm not even going into WND?

And once again, you are just further diverting from the subject...

I said I took my sources over factcheck.org "in this case"... Make of that anything you like... The article I've already posted takes the FactCheck article specifically to task. The FactCheck article appears to be a biased article. (And it's not the first time it's happened.) I already admitted that "alternet" was a slanted source. I do not believe that The Center for Economic and Policy Research is...and unless you're calling Ronnie Raygun a liar, I'll take his explanation over yours as well... As for "dailycaller", i.e., Tucker Carlson...? It is what it is.

Now, if you want to suddenly divert the conversation to Medicare, that's a different conversation... (speaking of deflection)....

I mean really....

LJ's source is easily disproved with common sense. The baby boomers are getting ready to retire and they can be expected to live to 75. Meanwhile we are at zero population growth. So the pyramid scheme that was built upon is foundering. Not enough taken out for all the people still living and not enough new workers contributing. Europe and Japan are having the same issues. I would not advocate destroying SS but we do need to end the current tax holiday and possibly increase the percentage taken out. LJ's solution to increase to tax the rich a higher limit is too little too late. 2% can't save the 98%

SSDI part of SS is going to be insolvent by 2016 and require a bailout- thus adding to future defecits.

SS is only 75% funded long term after the missing trust funds run out on paper. Paying back the trust funds will have the same effect in future budgets as adding more deficits since the money isn't in the budget now.

2% payroll cut in 2011 and 2012 was paid for with deficits

Medicare is the bigger unsustainable entitlement, but SS is hardly self sustaining or well financed without changes.

Solution: Talk about "strengthening" the programs and kick the can some more.

Source: www. lol .com

FredHayek wrote: LJ's source is easily disproved with common sense. The baby boomers are getting ready to retire and they can be expected to live to 75. Meanwhile we are at zero population growth. So the pyramid scheme that was built upon is foundering. Not enough taken out for all the people still living and not enough new workers contributing. Europe and Japan are having the same issues. I would not advocate destroying SS but we do need to end the current tax holiday and possibly increase the percentage taken out. LJ's solution to increase to tax the rich a higher limit is too little too late. 2% can't save the 98%

Disproven?...I don't think so. Disagreed with? Imagine my surprise.... You keep talking as if reinstituting the 4.6% rates on the top 2% "isn't going to solve the problem, so therefore shouldn't be done"...NO one source of revenue is going to get us out of the hole...But a) that's part of a larger strategy, and NOT the only source; b) it will indeed add to the reduction of the overall deficit; c) it's still a matter of fairness (not to mention 81% of the population agrees with it, including many Republicans); d) it's going to happen...

Jus' keep headin' off that cliff... It's a win/win for the Dems.

4.8% ?