Forget the Fiscal Cliff

lionshead2010 wrote: Next volley:

House Republicans present fiscal cliff deal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/house- ... =countdown

House Republicans on Monday presented their first deficit-reduction plan that roughly matches the size of President Barack Obama's $4 trillion tax-and-spending program without increasing tax rates. Under the proposal, the Republicans would increase taxes by $800 billion, abour half of what Obama has proposed. It includes $600 billion in savings in Medicare and other health programs - more than the $400 billion Obama has proposed. House Republicans said the offer was based on a deficit-cutting plan presented by Erskin Bowles, a co-leader of the Obama commission on deficit reduction.

So now we can see where this goes.

and here is what Eskin Bowles had to say about the GOP plan:

While I'm flattered the Speaker would call something "the Bowles plan," the approach outlined in the letter Speaker Boehner sent to the President does not represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan. In my testimony before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, I simply took the mid-point of the public offers put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where I thought a deal could be reached at that time.
The Joint Select Committee failed to reach a deal, and circumstances have changed since then. It is up to negotiators to figure out where the middle ground is today. Every offer put forward brings us closer to a deal, but to reach an agreement, it will be necessary for both sides to move beyond their opening positions and reach agreement on a comprehensive plan which avoids the fiscal cliff and puts the debt on a clear downward path relative to the economy.

The GOTP hasn't had more than a passing understanding of either facts or reality in 30 years....

Obama is going down on this deal. It don't matter who he tries to blame this one on. He promised NO TAX INCREASES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS... all the GOP has to do is force that promise to be broken. Instant asshole... mix one Obama with piss and stir.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So 'splain this to me. The House GOP plan largely consists of cuts to Social Security benefits. However, SS benefits are paid out of the SS Trust fund through payroll taxes, not from the US Treasury. So how will cutting SS benefits reduce the deficit? Unless the GOP is planning on raiding the SS Trust fund without paying it back. Yes, currently the Treasury is "borrowing" from the Trust fund with Treasury backed instruments which MUST be paid back, unless Congress votes to default on those repayments. So it appears that is the House GOP plan, to increase the amounts in the SS Trust Fund on the back of those who have been paying into the Trust Fund for years, so that they can then "steal" from that Trust Fund in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent. So once again those who depend upon SS, the lower and middle income classes, in order to benefit the wealthiest two percent.

Typical Republican plan.

So you are still sticking to the claim that SS does not contribute to the deficit (or debt)? I already provided the most recent factcheck.org link disputing this.

http://factcheck.org/2012/11/durbin-again-denies-social-securitys-red-ink/

OK, you don't believe factcheck? How about President Obama's own report. Will you believe that? Check table S-4 on page 208. As part of the total deficit, Obama's report lists Social Secuity payments ($725 billion in 2011) as an outlay, and Social Security payroll taxes ($566 billion) as a receipt. Together they are a net negative of $159 billion to the $1.3 trillion total deficit for 2011 and it's getting worse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

And I can add the Washington Post's own fact checker as well. They do a good job explaining how this claim is just Democrat political talking points.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/updating-a-ruling-social-security-and-its-role-in-the-nations-debt/2012/11/29/1cd3e8aa-3a68-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_blog.html

Ultimately, those bonds are part of the overall U.S. national debt. In other words, it doesn’t matter what happened in the past with Social Security monies; what matters is whether Social Security is generating enough money today to pay for its bills on its own. The plain fact is that it is not, and thus it adds to government’s overall fiscal imbalance.

Democrats are relying on sleight of hand to potentially mislead voters about the long-term financing of Social Security. To some extent, they are trying to wall off discussion of Social Security from a debate over solving the “fiscal cliff.” That may be appropriate, but that does not excuse this language.

So far as your claims about the GOP plan goes, I don't see where their plan consists largely of Social Security benefits cuts as you said. I've just seen summaries so far, but the biggest proposed cuts are in Medicare/health spending ($600-800 billion depending on source). Social Security cuts amount to about $200 billion and the main cut comes from using a different inflation index to calculate future payments. In your own earlier thread about the fiscal cliff, you said you supported the Simpson-Bowles Plan. Well, that plan also proposed a different index for Social Security payments, plus they increased the age up to about 69 years old (I don't think the GOP plan does that, but not sure due to few details so far, and not many details for Obama's plan either). So have you flip-flopped on your support of Simpson-Bowles?

The Left on this site is a better spokesman for BHO than Jay Kearney and they will parrot BHO's lies just as quickly.

And we've already provided the facts refuting and destroying the factcheck.org article...

SS does NOT add to the deficit...

LadyJazzer wrote: And we've already provided the facts refuting and destroying the factcheck.org article...

SS does NOT add to the deficit...

President Obama counts Social Security as part of the $1.3 trillion deficit in his own report. How do you explain that away?

I've already provided the material and the links.... Perhaps you need to read slower:

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


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.

President Obama counts Social Security as part of the $1.3 trillion deficit in his own report. How do you explain that away?

pineinthegrass wrote: President Obama counts Social Security as part of the $1.3 trillion deficit in his own report. How do you explain that away?

I don't have to explain that away since President Obama did not count SS as part of the deficit. That is just another conservative lie. What is contributing to the deficit is that Congress MUST pay the SS Trust fund back the money it "borrowed" from the Fund backed by Treasury issued instruments. SS did not contribute to the deficit, as has been pointed out time and time again, that Congress "borrowed" the surplus from the Fund and now must pay it back is the issue as it relates to the deficit. The GOP wants to "create" a larger surplus by denying benefits to those who paid into the Fund so that it can then "borrow" that surplus to pay for tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent. It also appears that the GOP wants to default on the loans at the expense of those who now should be able to draw their benefits but the GOP wants to make that even more difficult.