Advertisement

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • Wait, I thought Social Security is in a trust!

    Posted by Unknown Member on July 12, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

    “I cannot guarantee that those 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,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News.

    Are you telling me that the Social Security funds have been raided and drained ages ago?

    btomba_77 replied 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Members · 80 Replies
  • 80 Replies
  • jquinones8812_854

    Member
    July 12, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Nah, can’t happen…there is a lockbox.

    • eyoab2011_711

      Member
      July 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm

      Yes they have been raided and replaced with treasury bonds.  So we are defaulting on the bonds but that is a different question as to whether social security in contributing to the debt/deficit.  It is not until the money collected into social security over time is less than what is paid out over time.
       
      Your logic is that if I have money in a bank account, I am running a deficit because if the bank defaults I have no money.  Do you think banks have all the money deposited immediately on hand?  In this case Social security has money is bonds and the US is the bank

      • jquinones8812_854

        Member
        July 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm

        Actually, no Thor.

        According to Geithner this would NOT be a default on bonds at all. It would be simply that they would not shunt dollars to Social Security…which again, makes my point…Social Security is simply another government program. There is nothing special about it.

        This has nothing to do with defaulting on the bonds. Even paying all the bonds off, there is not enough money to keep social security pay rolls going.

        • kayla.meyer_144

          Member
          July 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm

          Something other than a bumper sticker explanation of the social security assets/expense issue: SS has a surplus in the bank account & the balance + the interest will pay SS checks for years. The issue is that the account has been raided.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/social-security-and-its-role-in-the-nations-debt/2011/07/11/gIQAp1Wl9H_blog.html

          As Ive said, Social Security is not the primary driver of our long-term deficits and debt.

          President Obama, July 11, 2011

          Social Security has never contributed a dime to the nations $14.3 trillion debtnot one penny to our federal budget deficit this year or any year in our nations history.

          Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). July 8, 2011

          Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, which means that payments collected today are immediately used to pay benefits. Until recently, more payments were collected than were needed for benefits. So Social Security loaned the money to the U.S. government, which used it for other things. In exchange, Social Security received interest-bearing Treasury securities. The value of those bonds is now about $2.6 trillion.

          The key to understanding whats going on now is a Congressional Budget Office document that shows the flow of money in and out of the Social Security funds. Becerra looks at this document and sees income of $805 billion and total outgo of $733 billion, for a surplus of $72 billion.

          The bonds are a real asset to Social Security, but heres where it gets complicated they also represent an obligation by the rest of the government. Like any entity that issues debt, such as a corporation, the government will have to make good on its obligations, generally by taking the money out of revenue, reducing expenses or issuing new debt.

          The action taken really depends on the resources available at the time. There is nothing particularly unusual about this, except that the U.S. government is better placed to make good on these obligations than virtually any other debt-issuer.

          To some extent, this is a matter of theology.

          Beccerra looks at the pile of $2.6 trillion in assets built up by Social Security, and says, correctly, that Social Security did not add to the debt; it is indeed a creditor to the United States. Im obviously concerned the federal government has to pay its debts, but it pales in comparison to the trillions the federal government has taken and borrowed from Social Security, he said. (He also provided a fact sheet laying out his case.)

          But others can look at the same numbers and say this is just paper-shuffling among different parts of the U.S. government. There may be a legal and moral obligation to make good on the benefits promised to Social Security beneficiaries, but ultimately what matters is whether the system is running a positive cash flow.

          The Social Security Trust Fund is running a surplus, continuing to build up assets, and projected to be solvent for decades. However, the system does face a long-term shortfall, said Kenneth Baer, senior adviser and communications director at the White House budget office. That shortfall adds to the federal governments overall fiscal imbalance, but it is not a primary driver of it. The President is committed to strengthening the Social Security system and eliminating that shortfall so that the Social Security system is stable and secure for generations to come.

          The Pinocchio Test
          Becerra is sincere in his convictions and his statement is true, so far as it goes. Yes, Social Security in the past has not contributed to the nations debt. But its basically a meaningless fact and actually distracts from the long-term fiscal problem posed by the retirement of the baby boom generation and the shrinking of the nations labor pool.

          We are going to label this with that relatively rare rating: true but false.

          • jquinones8812_854

            Member
            July 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm

            I agree with that Frumi…it SHOULD have been a reserve account, but hasn’t been for 4 decades.

            Congress turned what should have been a pension system into a Ponzi scheme.

            The key point is this one:

            The Social Security Trust Fund is running a surplus, continuing to build up assets, and projected to be solvent for decades. However, the system does face a long-term shortfall, said Kenneth Baer, senior adviser and communications director at the White House budget office. That shortfall adds to the federal governments overall fiscal imbalance, but it is not a primary driver of it. The President is committed to strengthening the Social Security system and eliminating that shortfall so that the Social Security system is stable and secure for generations to come.

            That shortfall adds to our deficit. That is why it is in the conversation.

            • kayla.meyer_144

              Member
              July 12, 2011 at 5:45 pm

              ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

              I agree with that Frumi…it SHOULD have been a reserve account, but hasn’t been for 4 decades.

              Congress turned what should have been a pension system into a Ponzi scheme.

              That shortfall adds to our deficit. That is why it is in the conversation.

              Except that Ponzi Schemes don’t usually aren’t acknowledged to exist in any sort of savings or investment account earning interest while SS is. So I agree, buying Treasury Bills does allow for the appearance of a Ponzi Scheme for those to whom a bumper sticker is a complex legal instrument steeped in legalese. Let’s take that $2.6 Trillion in the account & really invest it in the private market the way it should be. Considering we are in an economic slowdown, we can slowly convert the Treasuries & invest the deposits into the private markets over a 10 year period. The Government can invest in stocks and bonds, worldwide with a preference for domestic businesses.

              That’s the way it should be.

              But wait, wasn’t that a reason for the Bush tax cuts in 2001? Greenspan & Bush were too worried that the surplus would pay off the deficit quickly & that government would invest in the private markets & be able to affect those markets? Wasn’t that a primary reason why Republican believe that government cannot have a surplus expecially if that surplus is used to pay down the deficit, because it would directly affect the markets?

              Quite a dilemma here. What then is the Republican solution for investing Social Security balances & receipts and budget surpluses? You tell me.

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                July 12, 2011 at 6:15 pm

                Ok is this some kind of gag thread. Social security trust fund? That’s a joke right? It’s a ledger with all the money the government has spent on other things and worth exactly nothing, nada, zip. No intrinsic value. The government cannot owe itself money! There are only future taxpayer obligations that can be honored, modified or dissolved at the whim of congress.

                • Unknown Member

                  Deleted User
                  July 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm

                  ORIGINAL: PostCall

                  Ok is this some kind of gag thread. Social security trust fund? That’s a joke right? It’s a ledger with all the money the government has spent on other things and worth exactly nothing, nada, zip. No intrinsic value. The government cannot owe itself money! There are only future taxpayer obligations that can be honored, modified or dissolved at the whim of congress.

                  Ding ding ding!!  We have a winner.

                  If only dimwits like Frumious could comprehend this.  LOL

                • kayla.meyer_144

                  Member
                  July 13, 2011 at 2:01 am

                  ORIGINAL: PostCall

                  Ok is this some kind of gag thread. Social security trust fund? That’s a joke right? It’s a ledger with all the money the government has spent on other things and worth exactly nothing, nada, zip. No intrinsic value. The government cannot owe itself money! There are only future taxpayer obligations that can be honored, modified or dissolved at the whim of congress.

                  If you have any Treasuries, is that a gag or do you expect to get paid? & I’ll bet you that every $1 you invested has been spent by the Government so how is your $1 different? I know the Chinese hold Treasuries & don’t think it’s a gag & where is their $$$? Spent? Yet they collect & expect to collect the interest as well as all other bond holders which is the problem, if we default these bond holders will kill our economy by increasing interest rates due to the default.

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/congress-hears-outcry-from-business-lobby-on-debt-ceiling-and-deficit/2011/07/12/gIQAiVGpAI_story_1.html

                  Treasury securities influence the cost of financing not just for companies but more importantly for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and student debt. A default would risk both disarray in those markets and a host of unintended consequences.

                  How is your $1 investment in Corporate Bonds or in Stocks any different since you expect the company to spend that $1? SS has those Treasuries credited to it & actually does collect interest on the holdings so it is not a gag.

                  http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

                  By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are “special issues” of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

                  In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

                  Data on trust fund investments provide a breakdown by interest rate and trust fund for any month after 1989.

                  What interest rate do the trust funds’ assets earn? The rate of interest on special issues is determined by a formula enacted in 1960. The rate is determined at the end of each month and applies to new investments in the following month.

                  The numeric average of the 12 monthly interest rates for 2010 was 2.760 percent. The annual effective interest rate (the average rate of return on all investments over a one-year period) for the OASI and DI Trust Funds, combined, was 4.642 percent in 2010. This higher effective rate resulted because the funds hold special-issue bonds acquired in past years when interest rates were higher.

                  Part of the budget is the interest to be paid on Treasuries & that includes the Social Security holdings. It’s real $$$ paid out to investors.

                  Take all the $$$ in SS & create a giant investment account & invest in the markets. That’s $2.6 trillion to invest. That’s some market influence.

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    July 13, 2011 at 7:58 am

                    “If you have any Treasuries, is that a gag or do you expect to get paid?”

                    You’re pulling my leg right? Treasuries are debt instruments, a promise by the government to repay the holder (some independent agency, person or foreign government) and they can be “bought and sold”. And that’s really key here because the interest treasuries yield reflects the faith of the buyers in the creditworthiness of the issuer (the US government aka the US taxpayer). There are NO treasuries in the SS or Medicare trust funds.

                    I’ll say it again: the government CANNOT owe itself money. It doesn’t matter one bit what the government says should be there, these are not assets that can be cashed, bought or sold. Saying there are treasuries in the SS trust fund is like me saying I have a net worth, right now, of 100 million because I owe myself 100 million (but it’s not actually there). It is an accounting fraud.

                    The reason this is VERY important to understand is because when you do you will understand that Medicare and SS are insolvent the moment outlays exceed tax revenues, not at some hazy future when we have cashed all those imaginary treasuries that don’t exist. That’s why the politicians are screaming NOW. That $2.6 trillion SS supposedly holds will NEVER be cashed.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 8:23 am

                      Tghe bottom line is that come Aug 3 if no deal is reached the government has to make choices on what gets paid. All agree that we would continue to pay interest on debt but no principal. Even that would require borrowing 500 billion more at what may be higher interest rates. Then with what money is left (about 44%) of budget gets spent. They could pay all SS, Medicare, and Medicaid but have nothing for defense, justice(includes FBI), CIA etc. If they want to continue to pay for defense they would have to cut payments to SS, Medicare or Medicaid. Those are the cold hard facts.
                       
                      What is amazing to me is the double speak going on. McConnell said Sunday that the debt ceiling would be raised no matter what, Boehner says that the GOP give in the give and take is raising the ceiling. It is interesting is that the debt is purely Congreassional driven. The President doesn’t control the budget. He can only spend what Congress approves.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 8:30 am

                      “Tghe bottom line is that come Aug 3 if no deal is reached the government has to make choices on what gets paid. All agree that we would continue to pay interest on debt but no principal.”

                      Exactly. And that should tell you exactly what is, or isn’t, in the SS “trust fund”. First, if SS was truly independent it would still be able to issue SS checks because it still has an income from SS taxes. Second, with a 2.4 TRILLION stockpile of treasuries it could sell some on the open market to meet any monthly deficit, regardless of what the rest of the government was doing. The fact that it would even be entertained that SS couldn’t use it’s ASSETS to meet expenses proves beyond a doubt that there is NOTHING there of any real worth.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 8:40 am

                      Exactly.

                      Obama and Geithner have said they will not default on treasuries and loans in the short term, even if there is no deal.

                      Yesterday, Obama said they may default on SS payments.

                      Therefore…SS obligations are not considered debt obligations by Obama…but spending programs…which is exactly accurate.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 8:52 am

                      but…but…but Frumious says Social Security is solvent and full of treasury bonds.  Valuable, redeemable solvent treasury bonds.  The US goobermint can print more money, redeem those treasury bonds from itself and voila!  The retired people gets paid.
                       
                      If Frumious is the accounting expert that he thinks he is, he really should follow the money trail.  As in the corporate world, the cash flow is what’s important.  You can do Enron-accounting and off balance-sheet transactions, but you can’t fake cash flow forever.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 8:57 am

                      Postcall,

                      Social Security trust Fund runs exactly the way today that it did when created in 1939. It has been “off-budget” & “on-budget” in the past but otherwise it’s contributions are treated exactly the same as when created. The laws creating Social Security & how its contributions are handled have not changed.

                      [link=http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp]http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp[/link]

                      The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the “general operating fund.”

                      However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be “independent” is problematic. [b]The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in [u]the fund may only “be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government,” such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds[/u]. So, essentially, [i]the government can “invest” Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government “pays back” this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds[/i].[/b]

                      Essentially, you are mistaken.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 9:10 am

                      Oh wow, you produced a link where the government says “Don’t worry about it, we’re good for it”. I can play that game. Here let me Bing “Whats in the social security trust fund” for you: and we can choose the first link:
                      [link=http://dailyreckoning.com/whats-really-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/]http://dailyreckoning.com/whats-really-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/[/link]
                      “This bookkeeping scheme known as the Social Security Trust Fund is not the biggest issue in America for one reason: US Treasuries are currently as good as cash. In fact, since they pay a paltry yield and are accepted everywhere, they might even be better than dollars. But in a real, utilitarian sense, T-Bonds in the SSTF are way, way worse than cash. They are a liability, not an asset. The SSTF can exchange them for dollars, but those dollars must come from the very government thats on the other side of the exchange. As President Clintons Office of Management and Budget once explained:”

                      Essentially, you are naive.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 9:15 am

                      ORIGINAL: PostCall

                      Essentially, you are naive.

                       
                       
                      Essentially, he’s a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
                       
                      I have beach-front property in Phoenix to sell him.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 9:40 am

                      “I have beach-front property in Phoenix to sell him.”

                      Chuckle. But it is a serious subject. Millions of Americans are banking their retirement upon this fiction that there are “real assets” in the trust fund. These are not assets that can simply be cashed on the open market they can only be “exchanged” for future taxes or printing money (issuing more debt). When you understand that you understand why there is a crisis NOW and what steps the government will take to give the “appearance” of not defaulting.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 9:31 am

                      ORIGINAL: PostCall

                      Oh wow, you produced a link where the government says “Don’t worry about it, we’re good for it”. I can play that game. Here let me Bing “Whats in the social security trust fund” for you: and we can choose the first link:
                      [link=http://dailyreckoning.com/whats-really-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/]http://dailyreckoning.com/whats-really-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/[/link]
                      “This bookkeeping scheme known as the Social Security Trust Fund is not the biggest issue in America for one reason: US Treasuries are currently as good as cash. In fact, since they pay a paltry yield and are accepted everywhere, they might even be better than dollars. But in a real, utilitarian sense, T-Bonds in the SSTF are way, way worse than cash. They are a liability, not an asset. The SSTF can exchange them for dollars, but those dollars must come from the very government thats on the other side of the exchange. As President Clintons Office of Management and Budget once explained:”

                      Essentially, you are naive.

                      The “problem” is that SS monies – BY LAW – have to be invested in Treasuries & no where else. They are not allowed to be invested anywhere else. They are NOT part of the general fund & only become so by purchasing the treasuries, again which is the only way they can be “spent” or invested short of checks to SS recipients.

                      The fact is that you are confused about how SS works.

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/can-president-obama-keep-paying-social-security-benefits-even-if-the-debt-ceiling-is-reached/2011/07/12/gIQA9myRBI_blog.html

                      Jason J. Fichtner, a former deputy Social Security administrator during the Bush administration now at George Mason University, believes this explanation is unsatisfactory. He notes that Social Security holds $2.6 trillion in special-issue Treasury securities. Those bonds are part of the $14.3 trillion debt amassed by the U.S. government, and benefits are paid out of those securities.

                      There is a technical wrinkle involving the fact that payroll taxes that are collected are supposed to be immediately turned into Treasury securities, but there could be ways around that, such as putting the monies in a noninterest bearing account, as during the 1985 debt crisis. Although some of the Secretarys actions appear in retrospect to have been in violation of the requirements of the Social Security Act, we cannot say that the Secretary acted unreasonably given the extraordinary situation in which he was operating, the General Accounting Office later concluded.

                      [b] I’m now 99.9 percent positive that Treasury has legal authority to pay Social Security benefits in both cases of a government shutdown and hitting the debt limit, since the payment of benefits shouldnt affect the debt limit because it reduces the trust funds to the exact extent that it increase publicly-held debt, Fichtner said. What I don’t know is whether Treasury has to pay benefits if it chooses not to.[/b]

                       Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research who has derided the phony crisis of Social Security, also believes the checks could keep flowing. I would think that they could legally pay Social Security by reducing the obligations of the fund, he said. It no doubt would be a huge political issue.

                      The fact is that this Rubicon has never been crossed. That’s about the only thing we know.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 9:49 am

                      “The “problem” is that SS monies – BY LAW – have to be invested in Treasuries & no where else. They are not allowed to be invested anywhere else”

                      Once again if there were “treasuries” in the SS fund they could be exchanged on the open market for CASH to pay benefits. It’s as simple as that. Treasuries can be exchanged for cash to anyone willing to hold them.

                      P.S. While we are tossing out ad hominem attacks are you actually incapable of making a coherent point without linking half a dozen articles?

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

                      Postcall,

                      If treasuries are worth anything then the bonds in the SS accounts are valid. If the SS bonds are not valid why should any be since in order to pay off any of them monies need to be borrowed since there is insufficient revenue to pay off any of them since there are trillions of $ outstanding.

                      That is the problem you don’t explain. Either the bonds are good or they are not. If they are not worth anything we have already defaulted. These treasuries are backed by nothing except the good faith of the US government. Investors worldwide seem to think that is good enough since they are buying treasuries as we speak & worldwide, holders of the bonds are not dumping them en masse.

                      That you have to explain.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 10:39 am

                      Investors worldwide seem to think that is good enough since they are buying treasuries as we speak & worldwide, holders of the bonds are not dumping them en masse.

                      You specified the exact difference right there. Treasuries and bonds are buy-able and sell-able debt instruments that “investors” hold and their value and rate is specified by the creditworthiness of the US taxpayer. The market decides what they are worth. The “assets” the the SS trust fund are neither buy-able nor sell-able and indeed the terms of their repayment (i.e. SS benefits) can be modified at the whim of congress. If you have something that can neither be bought nor sold what is it’s market value? ZERO!

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 10:55 am

                      You want to buy the special issue SS bonds? You think SS treasury bonds should be sold on the open market? Why? The fact that they are special issue is the summation of your whole issue & conclusion that they are worthless? How exactly does that work? They are backed by the identical backing “regular” Treasuries are, the “full faith and credit of the US Government.” How do you selectively negate that while simultaneously believe that the full faith is worthless when it comes to SS bonds?

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 11:12 am

                      “You want to buy the special issue SS bonds? You think SS treasury bonds should be sold on the open market?”

                      Absolutely, if they are real assets, and there is no need for “special” SS bonds. Look, in my mind, this is the ultimate test. IF, in fact,the government and market considers these special treasuries THE SAME as real treasuries then the solution for SS is for the government to exchange the non-marketable debt for REAL treasuries that the SS admin can sell on the open market to cover it’s responsibilities. That would immediately solve the SS funding problem. But we all know the government does not consider these “real treasuries”,  or they just would have stuffed the fund with real treasuries to begin with, and the market certainly doesn’t. That the government never planned to repay these debts (the definition of a Ponzi scheme) is reflected in its unwillingness to put marketable debt into the fund. That would mean the government would have to actually reflect the money it was taking from SS as an “on the books” spending deficit.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 11:36 am

                      ORIGINAL: PostCall

                      “You want to buy the special issue SS bonds? You think SS treasury bonds should be sold on the open market?”

                      Absolutely, if they are real assets, and there is no need for “special” SS bonds. Look, in my mind, this is the ultimate test. IF, in fact,the government and market considers these special treasuries THE SAME as real treasuries then the solution for SS is for the government to exchange the non-marketable debt for REAL treasuries that the SS admin can sell on the open market to cover it’s responsibilities. That would immediately solve the SS funding problem. But we all know the government does not consider these “real treasuries”,  or they just would have stuffed the fund with real treasuries to begin with, and the market certainly doesn’t. That the government never planned to repay these debts (the definition of a Ponzi scheme) is reflected in its unwillingness to put marketable debt into the fund. That would mean the government would have to actually reflect the money it was taking from SS as an “on the books” spending deficit.

                      You’re taking a giant leap of unfaith since it is published & publicly acknowledged that there is a $2.6 trillion debt by all parties who have $$$ to back up their faith. IMO you see a meaningless difference. The obligation is published & on the books, period. That’s all that counts.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 11:44 am

                      ” $2.6 trillion debt by all parties who have $$$ to back up their faith. IMO ”

                      LMAO.

                      Yeah apparently one of the parties in this ONE PARTY trade doesn’t have the money right now.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 12:17 pm

                      ORIGINAL: PostCall

                      ” $2.6 trillion debt by all parties who have $$$ to back up their faith. IMO ”

                      LMAO.

                      Yeah apparently one of the parties in this ONE PARTY trade doesn’t have the money right now.

                       
                       
                      Don’t worry.  Obama and his replacements will borrow more money to repay the Social Security “trust.”  And if Obama can’t borrow more, he’s threatening to default on SS.
                       
                      Worst case scenario, Bernanke will help Obama print more money and drop em from helicopters.
                       
                      Only with Enron-accounting can you borrow more money to pay off existing debt and not consider yourself broke.  Greece is doing the same thing and isn’t broke either.  LOL

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm

                      We are, once again, borrowing from ourselves. There is no second party.

                    • eyoab2011_711

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm

                       
                       
                      In a news conference Wednesday morning, Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.) and Steve King (Iowa) referred to Obamas warning that senior citizens might not receive their Social Security checks if the debt limit is not raised by an Aug. 2 deadline.
                      We dont believe that for a moment, Bachmann said.
                      I would encourage the speaker not to believe the president anymore, because the fact is that if he does his homework, he will find that there is such as thing as the Social Security Trust Fund, Gohmert said.
                       
                      [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bernanke-warns-of-calamity-if-us-defaults-republicans-decry-scare-tactics/2011/07/13/gIQAMbycCI_story_1.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bernanke-warns-of-calamity-if-us-defaults-republicans-decry-scare-tactics/2011/07/13/gIQAMbycCI_story_1.html[/link]
                       
                      You guys need to your talking points better co-mingled with the Repubs

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm

                      They are wrong too.

                      Never said there wasn’t bipartisan stupidity.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 4:09 pm

                      By the way, the Social Security Administrator was testifying on capitol hill today, and let this little tidbit slip: any decision on payouts on SS will reside with the Dept of the Treasury…so ultimately, will be a political decision.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 14, 2011 at 7:42 am

                      Again there will not be enough money to pay all of our obligations. You can pay all SS, but something isn’t going to get paid. Do you want to not pay for defense, Medicare, interest on debt.
                       
                      As Colbert said the problem is that the GOP are bluffing that they will not raise debt ceiling after virtually every leader of the party says they won’t allow that to happen. Weak hand to bluff from. For all their talk about wanting businesses to have stability they seem to not care now. They had 300 business leaders tell them yesterday that not passing the debt ceiling could have consequences as bad or worse than 2008. They realize that they have painted themselves into a corner. Either they buck the Tea Party wing or risk accepting the blame for the economy in 2012. They too can read the polls that show 2/3rds of public back increasing taxes on wealthy. To me it more of seeing who blinks first within the GOP. It appears that McConnell has already blinked.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      July 14, 2011 at 8:32 am

                      Can they read the polls that show that people want big cuts in spending before raising the debt limit?

                      I agree they have painted themselves in a corner…but I am frankly happy in the corner they are in. When politicians are not pushed into a corner, they do nothing. Look at Obama. For all his talk, he doesn’t have one specific proposal on decreasing debt. Oh, he has talked a lot, but can anyone point to any specifics? Of course you can’t. Obama believes he can wait this out, and Repubs will fold. Maybe that is true politically…but his inaction is damaging to the country.

                      For all those that talk about Repubs only playing politics…sorry, but Obama is doing the exact same thing. If he wasn’t, he would have accepted Simpson-Bowles and fought for it. Instead, he is simply running the clock.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 14, 2011 at 10:16 am

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      Look at Obama. For all his talk, he doesn’t have one specific proposal on decreasing debt. Oh, he has talked a lot, but can anyone point to any specifics?

                       
                       
                      You are dead wrong.  Obama intends to cut spending by 2 BILLION next year…
                       
                      on a 1400 BILLION deficit.
                       
                      [link=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/271732/2-billion-daniel-foster]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/271732/2-billion-daniel-foster[/link]

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 14, 2011 at 11:38 am

                      The usual suspects are at it again, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, the top two Senate slime-ball lying politicos. Reid stated that Social Security checks will stop, unless a deal is cut. Schumer is predicting Armageddon. Using seniors and children as pawns. Scare tactics anyone?

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 14, 2011 at 11:44 am

                      [link=http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/debt-ceiling-deadline-2011-6086095]http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/debt-ceiling-deadline-2011-6086095[/link]
                       
                      Just thought I would share.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 14, 2011 at 1:10 pm

                      No real surprise there. I’ve been saying all along that there will be no tangible crisis if Aug 2 comes and goes. MAYBE the value of buck may drop a fraction of a percent, but then the Treasury can hold back on oil company subsidies and tax breaks for corporate jets, and impose tax penalties on corporations with factories overseas, but that’s all incremental stuff which would help subsidize the increased interest on our loans, so that we can continue to pay out debts.

                      This Y2K, Chicken Little crap coming out of Boehner, McConnell, and all the others is just silly nonsense which, if anything, screams of it being [u]NOT[/u] important, otherwise they most certainly would not be taking it down to the wire like this.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      July 14, 2011 at 2:40 pm

                      The only reason SS checks would stop is if Obama wants to play politics with social security.

                      I am not for reaching the debt ceiling, and we should get a deal before then, but for a few weeks the govt would survive. Democrats are doing our economy no favors by talking about catastrophe. And I have heard plenty of Chicken Little crap from this PRESIDENT, FYI.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 14, 2011 at 3:59 pm

                      The crying about armageddon is getting fatiguing.
                       
                      If we don’t bail out the banks, it will be a castastrophe of epic proportions, a second great depression.
                       
                      If we don’t bail out the auto industry, we will kill off the midwest.  BTW, hope you guys are buying safe American cars…more auto industry employees were caught drinking during work hours.
                       
                      If we don’t do massive deficit spending, we’ll be in another depression.
                       
                      If we don’t increase the debt ceiling, it will be another depression.
                       
                      All of this is nothing more than extortion to placate some special interest.

                    • eyoab2011_711

                      Member
                      July 14, 2011 at 6:15 pm

                      “The crying about armageddon is getting fatiguing.”
                       
                      Huh???  You are the king of armageddon talk

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 14, 2011 at 6:49 pm

                      ORIGINAL: Thor

                      “The crying about armageddon is getting fatiguing.”

                      Huh???  You are the king of armageddon talk

                      No, I’m just a realist.  Not threatening anything.  Just the big picture for the future generations.

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      August 3, 2022 at 6:15 am

                      [h1][b]Ron Johnson Wants Social Security to Be Discretionary[/b][/h1]  
                      Saying programs like Social Security and Medicare suffer from improper oversight, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) called for turning every government program into discretionary spending programs, meaning Congress would have to allocate funding for the programs each year, the [link=https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-calls-for-turning-social-security-medicare-into-discretionary-spending-programs/article_5d9457a6-fd52-5c7f-9dfb-37cc0466a1c9.html]Wisconsin State Journal[/link] reports.
                       
                      Such an effort could lead to yearly battles over the programs fights that some Republicans say are necessary to cut down on government spending, while many Democrats consider the programs to be some of the nations most beneficial.

                      ___

                      Just another way for Republicans to hold the government hostage.  No thanks, Ron.
                       

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      August 3, 2022 at 7:57 am

                      Well, theres a brilliant idea from a Republican rocket scientist.

                    • tdetlie_105

                      Member
                      August 3, 2022 at 6:15 pm

                      I do not have a sophisticated understanding of how programs like SS and medicare are run.  With this said, budget neutrality/zero sums game with CMS is not sustainable long-term if fee-for-service remains the back-one of our HC system.  At the bare minimum, why are physicians not entitled to cost of living adjustment that all federal workers receive? 

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      August 3, 2022 at 7:27 pm

                      For a start, physicians for the most part are not Federal employees. Most all belong to the private sector.

                    • tdetlie_105

                      Member
                      August 4, 2022 at 3:15 pm

                      Quote from Frumious

                      For a start, physicians for the most part are not Federal employees. Most all belong to the private sector.

                       
                      Sure but our rates are set by CMS so while we are not direct federal employees our compensation per unit work is determined by them.  If federal employees and private hospitals/HC systems are receiving COL adjustments so should we.  Having to lobby at the end of each year to minimize cuts is not cutting it.  
                       
                      The fact that the AMA is at the head of Medicare reform makes me think that this issue has reached a new level. Given demographics and increasing need/utilization, budget neutrality is not feasible.

                    • satyanar

                      Member
                      August 4, 2022 at 4:09 pm

                      The AMA is a CMS shill because they have a government sponsored monopoly of the CPT code. As always, follow the money.

                    • tdetlie_105

                      Member
                      August 5, 2022 at 4:33 pm

                      Quote from Thread Killer

                      The AMA is a CMS shill because they have a government sponsored monopoly of the CPT code. As always, follow the money.

                       
                      I agree which makes the whole AMA proposed CMS reform much more intriguing. My understanding is that many other groups/professional societies are the actual driving force behind this (including ACR).  Below are some links including link to recent webinar
                       
                      [link]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lw1sAJp6p4[/link]
                       
                       
                      Take action now: Contact Congress during the August recess 

                      Use these materials and [link=https://physiciansgrassrootsnetwork.org/be-heard?vvsrc=%2fCampaigns%2f96014%2fRespond]contact your members of Congress[/link] during the August recess to let them know the [link=https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/medicare-medicaid/current-medicare-payment-system-unsustainable-path]Medicare physician payment system needs reform[/link]to become a more sustainable, value-based system that better meets the needs of patients and physicians. 
                      [ul][*][link=https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-medicare-reform-grassroots-insert.pdf]The need for Medicare payment reform[/link] (PDF) [*][link=https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-medicare-payment-cuts-grassroots-insert.pdf]Congress must stop Medicare payment cuts triggered by budget neutrality[/link](PDF) [*][link=https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-medicare-gaps-chart-grassroots-insert.pdf]The Medicare physician payment system needs annual inflation updates[/link](PDF) [*][link=https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-medicare-apms-grassroots-insert.pdf]Medicare alternative payment models[/link] (PDF) [*][link=https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/characteristics-rational-medicare-payment-principles.pdf]The principles: Characteristics of a rational Medicare physician payment system[/link] (PDF)  [/ul]    

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      January 19, 2023 at 4:37 am

                      [link=https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1615080979042893825]https://twitter.com/NoLie…us/1615080979042893825[/link]
                       
                      Rick Allen (R-GA), the Senior Republican on the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, recorded saying his party is going after Social Security because people want to work longer.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 11:18 am

                      ORIGINAL: Frumious

                      You want to buy the special issue SS bonds? You think SS treasury bonds should be sold on the open market? Why? The fact that they are special issue is the summation of your whole issue & conclusion that they are worthless? How exactly does that work? They are backed by the identical backing “regular” Treasuries are, the “full faith and credit of the US Government.” How do you selectively negate that while simultaneously believe that the full faith is worthless when it comes to SS bonds?

                       
                       
                       
                      If the SS “bonds” are backed by the “full faith and credit of the US” goobermint, why is Obama threatening default?  LOL

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 9:40 am

                      BTW Postcall, are you of these “Gold-Standard” people because by your arguments that is the only value since USA has been bankrupt since President Jackson’s time running on deficits & we really went bankrupt when we went off the Gold Standard. You have no Treasury holdings since they are valueless. Not even indirectly? PIMCO is befuddled by investing real $$$?

                      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-13/pimco-s-gross-raised-total-return-s-treasury-holdings-in-june-pared-cash.html

                      You have to explain then why PIMCO & the like continue to invest in value-less treasuries.

              • jquinones8812_854

                Member
                July 12, 2011 at 7:53 pm

                ORIGINAL: Frumious

                ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                I agree with that Frumi…it SHOULD have been a reserve account, but hasn’t been for 4 decades.

                Congress turned what should have been a pension system into a Ponzi scheme.

                That shortfall adds to our deficit. That is why it is in the conversation.

                Except that Ponzi Schemes don’t usually aren’t acknowledged to exist in any sort of savings or investment account earning interest while SS is. So I agree, buying Treasury Bills does allow for the appearance of a Ponzi Scheme for those to whom a bumper sticker is a complex legal instrument steeped in legalese. Let’s take that $2.6 Trillion in the account & really invest it in the private market the way it should be. Considering we are in an economic slowdown, we can slowly convert the Treasuries & invest the deposits into the private markets over a 10 year period. The Government can invest in stocks and bonds, worldwide with a preference for domestic businesses.

                That’s the way it should be.

                But wait, wasn’t that a reason for the Bush tax cuts in 2001? Greenspan & Bush were too worried that the surplus would pay off the deficit quickly & that government would invest in the private markets & be able to affect those markets? Wasn’t that a primary reason why Republican believe that government cannot have a surplus expecially if that surplus is used to pay down the deficit, because it would directly affect the markets?

                Quite a dilemma here. What then is the Republican solution for investing Social Security balances & receipts and budget surpluses? You tell me.

                My favorite analysis of this is this:

                http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/nov/14/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-social-security-ponzi-scheme/

                Basically, when you read it…the only thing that separates social security from a Ponzi scheme is that there is not INTENT to defraud. So basically, their conclusion is that it is a legal ponzi scheme.

                My favorite line in the piece is describing SS as a ‘pay as you go’ system. Um, Ponzi schemes are ‘pay as you go’ systems too…that is the problem.

                As for solutions, there is only one solution, and everyone, including Obama knows it. In fact, he admitted as much when he was running for President. You have to have a combination of increased taxes, decrease pay outs, which likely means increasing the age of retirement and means testing. Obama was really honest about this as Senator, and progressively less honest about it as President.

                Everyone knows what has to happen with social security. Nobody has the guts to do it, on either side of the aisle.

                • kayla.meyer_144

                  Member
                  July 13, 2011 at 2:06 am

                  ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                  As for solutions, there is only one solution, and everyone, including Obama knows it. In fact, he admitted as much when he was running for President. You have to have a combination of increased taxes, decrease pay outs, which likely means increasing the age of retirement and means testing. Obama was really honest about this as Senator, and progressively less honest about it as President.

                  Everyone knows what has to happen with social security. Nobody has the guts to do it, on either side of the aisle.

                  But how would that change the Right’s definition of SS as a Ponzi scheme? It wouldn’t. Your solution is the solution to a different issue. The way change the Ponzi argument is to use the SS surplus that is presently invested in Treasuries & invest them in the private market, in anything but Government Treasuries.

                  As for Rick Perry, he’s the guy who thought Texan succession was a good topic to discuss. He’s right up there with the guy who thinks taxes is the equivalent of The Holocaust.

                  • jquinones8812_854

                    Member
                    July 13, 2011 at 6:37 am

                    Doesn’t matter about the Right’s definition. If you think anyone is going to change perception that easy, you are fooling yourself.

                    My statement stands: everyone knows how to fix SS, but is not willing to do it…not since Reagan have they had that courage. It is tough, politically painful…but has to happen.

                    As for Treasuries…it is STILL AN IOU. And since SS and the govt are the same entity, it is like taking a loan from yourself. Remember that. The money isn’t magically coming from the sky…it is still coming from the same pockets of those people receiving benefits. And corporate bonds are no different. They are all based on trust in the loaning agency.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 6:44 am

                      Which means there should be a SS investment house created much like CalPERS to invest all of the $2.6 trillion SS monies in the private market. That would resolve the argument of taking out a loan from yourself.

                      BTW, businesses take out loans from themselves every day from one area to another as well as “sales.” It’s a normal business practice.

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 6:49 am

                      Yes, they do…but they are not usually in as much debt as we are in.

                      Are any businesses borrowing 40 cents on every dollar going out that you know of?

                      As for CalPERS…sure, you can do that, but that has its own risks. I am not against it, per se, but specifics matter. Frankly, if you are going to have it as an investment vehicle, why wouldn’t you diversify in more than US treasuries? Any other investor would do the same.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 7:06 am

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      Are any businesses borrowing 40 cents on every dollar going out that you know of?

                      As for CalPERS…sure, you can do that, but that has its own risks. I am not against it, per se, but specifics matter. Frankly, if you are going to have it as an investment vehicle, why wouldn’t you diversify in more than US treasuries? Any other investor would do the same.

                      You are claiming that the $0.40 per $1 is entirely due to SS payments? But Defense $$$ is not borrowed?

                      The SS deficit of $ in vs $ out is $47 billion, hardly the full monty of bankruptcy. Next year’s, due to the SS payroll cuts/ Keynesian stimulus brings up the deficit to $130 billion, also not an amount causing US bankruptcy. And, of course, SS has a credit of $2.6 trillion in Treasuries, that is not to be denied.

                      From the Trustees:

                      http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

                      As for investing that $2.6 trillion, you still haven’t answered that Republicans were against the Clinton surplus & deliberately created the deficit BECAUSE they argued that having no deficit would affect the market, that a surplus would affect the market & yet you are implying that using the SS $$$ to invest in the private market would not be opposed?

                    • jquinones8812_854

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 7:22 am

                      Never said that…you are twisting my words. You said that business borrow money…that was what I was referring to, as a total of government expenditures, not just SS.

                      SS is part of govt expenditures. There is no separate trust fund…it is imaginary.

                      As for your spin on Republicans, without Republicans Clinton would have never had a surplus in the first place.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      July 13, 2011 at 7:37 am

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      Never said that…you are twisting my words. You said that business borrow money…that was what I was referring to, as a total of government expenditures, not just SS.

                      SS is part of govt expenditures. There is no separate trust fund…it is imaginary.

                      As for your spin on Republicans, without Republicans Clinton would have never had a surplus in the first place.

                       
                      Ignore that goober.  He’s so blinded by ideology that even when concrete data is rammed up his a$$, he still can’t see or feel it.
                       

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 13, 2011 at 8:09 am

                      ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

                      Never said that…you are twisting my words. You said that business borrow money…that was what I was referring to, as a total of government expenditures, not just SS.

                      SS is part of govt expenditures. There is no separate trust fund…it is imaginary.

                      As for your spin on Republicans, without Republicans Clinton would have never had a surplus in the first place.

                      The SS money does exist and receives interest paid on debt. It’s not an accounting gimmick any more than treasury bondholders’ investment & interest is an accounting gimmick. If it’s a gimmick for SS money it’s a gimmick for any & all the bondholders & default would mean nothing since it all is imaginary. After all their investment $ don’t exist any more than SS dollars exist, it’s all been spent. Except try to tell the bondholders their $ is nothing but funny-money & see what happens.

                      As for who gets credit for the surpluses, irrelevant but you do have to give credit to both tax increases, 1st under Bush I & then Clinton, both with Democratic Congressional help. But it is the Republicans who DO get the credit for getting rid of the surplus & deliberately increasing the deficits.

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        July 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm

        ORIGINAL: Thor

        Yes they have been raided and replaced with treasury bonds.  So we are defaulting on the bonds but that is a different question as to whether social security in contributing to the debt/deficit.

        You said Social Security has been raided and replaced with treasury bonds. What’s going to happen to the government accounts when we have to repay that debt?

        Perhaps, the accounting gurus here, Lux and Frumious, can help me with the ledger transactions for this one.  I’m particularly interested in cash flows. 

  • btomba_77

    Member
    January 20, 2023 at 9:54 am

    [b]Trump Warns Republicans Not to Touch Social Security[/b][/h1]  
     
    Donald Trump issued a warning to Republican lawmakers on Friday: Dont lay a finger on entitlement programs as part of the debt ceiling showdown with the White House, [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/20/trump-gop-medicare-social-security-debt-ceiling-00078731]Politico[/link] reports.
     
    Said Trump: Under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security.
     
    The two-minute video which goes on to lambaste President Joe Biden over the migration crisis at the southern border is part of a series of policy announcements put out by his campaign. And it comes amid growing brinkmanship between congressional Republicans and the White House over raising the nations debt limit.

     

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 3, 2023 at 1:34 pm

    [h1][b]Mike Pence Calls for Social Security Reform  (Privatization)[/b][/h1]  
    Former Vice President Mike Pence, a possible contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, said that he wants to reform Social Security and institute private savings accounts for recipients, [link=https://news.yahoo.com/pence-calls-for-social-security-reform-private-savings-accounts-181754393.html]Yahoo News[/link] reports.
     
    Said Pence: There are modest reforms in entitlements that can be done without disadvantaging anybody at the point of the need. I think the day could come when we could replace the New Deal with a better deal. Literally give younger Americans the ability to take a portion of their Social Security withholdings and put that into a private savings account.
     

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 9, 2023 at 6:04 am

    [link=https://www.semafor.com/article/02/09/2023/democrats-think-2024-republicans-have-a-tea-party-weak-spot-on-entitlements]Semafor[/link] 

    [b]Democrats think 2024 Republicans have a Tea Party weak spot on entitlements

    [/b]

    Joe Biden wants to keep roughing up his opponents over Social Security and Medicare.
     
    The president earned a memorable shower of boos from Republican lawmakers during this weeks State of the Union, after he accused them of using the debt ceiling as leverage to wrangle cuts from the programs. On Thursday, hes headed to Tampa, Fla. for a speech the White House says will double down on the issue.
     
     
     
    Democrats are gearing up to make it a major issue in 2024 as well, where they believe they have a critical ally: Paul Ryan.
     
    Many of the GOPs top potential contenders voted for the former House speakers budgets, [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/health/policy/05health.html]which[/link] [link=https://www.cbpp.org/research/medicare-in-the-ryan-budget]famously[/link] would have turned Medicare into a voucher program for private insurance to save money.
     
    The idea fell off the political radar under President Trump, but with Ryan-era conservatives back in the spotlight, Democrats want to force them to account for their old positions.

    [/QUOTE]
     

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 10, 2023 at 5:50 am

    This is a bad idea. I think it will be a challenge for him to deal with this in his own reelection in Florida, a state with more elderly people than any other state in America.
     
    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by the [link=https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1623842177750118400]AP[/link], slamming Sen. Rick Scotts (R-FL) plan to sunset all laws, including Social Security and Medicare.
     

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      February 10, 2023 at 6:23 am

      Go Mitch, never one of my favorites but I applaud his throwing sleazebucket Florida-man Rick under the bus who got his riches by cheating the government of Medicare dollars in the biggest Medicare fraud in history. I guess he hates government entitlement programs so badly he wanted to personally bankrupt Medicare all by himself.
       
      [link=https://www.newsweek.com/rick-scotts-connection-massive-medicare-fraud-scandal-resurfaces-1780279]https://www.newsweek.com/rick-scotts-connection-massive-medicare-fraud-scandal-resurfaces-1780279[/link]
       
      [link=https://www.newsweek.com/rick-scotts-fraud-settlement-resurfaces-senate-gop-runs-low-cash-1735418]https://www.newsweek.com/rick-scotts-fraud-settlement-resurfaces-senate-gop-runs-low-cash-1735418[/link]
       
      [link=https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/03/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-rick-scott-oversaw-largest-medicare-fra/]https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/03/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-rick-scott-oversaw-largest-medicare-fra/[/link]

      During his 2010 race, the [i]Miami Herald[/i] reported that Scott had said he would have immediately stopped his company from committing fraud — if only “somebody told me something was wrong.”
       
      But there were such warnings in the companys annual public reports to stockholders — which Scott had to sign as president and CEO.
      Columbia billed Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs for tests that were not necessary or had not been ordered by physicians;
      The company attached false diagnosis codes to patient records to increase reimbursement to the hospitals;
      The company illegally claimed non-reimbursable marketing and advertising costs as community education;
      Columbia billed the government for home health care visits for patients who did not qualify to receive them.

       
       

    • adrianoal

      Member
      February 10, 2023 at 6:38 am

      Quote from dergon

      This is a bad idea. I think it will be a challenge for him to deal with this in his own reelection in Florida, a state with more elderly people than any other state in America.

      Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by the [link=https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1623842177750118400]AP[/link], slamming Sen. Rick Scotts (R-FL) plan to sunset all laws, including Social Security and Medicare.

       
      not sure if Rick Scott touched the 3rd rail, or actually managed to firmly grab on to two of them at the same time. In any case, the only impact will be problems for Rick Scott. Politically it’s obviously a complete non-starter. And idiotic– “hey retired people, we’re arguing in D.C. so guess what your income and health insurance are gone until we sort this old”.

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        February 10, 2023 at 6:48 am

        What is says most is the priorities and ignorance of Florida voters who will re-elect a Senator who wants to defund their healthcare and retirement income. Why? Well who cares, he’s a Republican!

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          February 10, 2023 at 8:00 am

          Yes

          The florida Democratic Party is in dissarray

          Our property insurance and car insurance is going through the roof every year but our legislators are banning books so their children wont feel guilty or threatened by realizing that at one point slavery existed or god forbid some people are gay

          Much more important than homeowners insurance and car insurance going up 40-50% last year

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 10, 2023 at 9:13 am

    Live by the Fox, die by the Fox

    [link=https://youtu.be/AiIToFeq-do]https://youtu.be/AiIToFeq-do[/link]
     
     
    The Lincoln Project grabs on to the Rick Scott plan

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 16, 2023 at 2:53 pm

    [link=https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1626308636451430403?s=46&t=6DTZI7i6F1VRVYvWr4AeUQ]https://twitter.com/atrup…6DTZI7i6F1VRVYvWr4AeUQ[/link]

    Pence Proposes Replacing Social Security, Medicare:

    Former Vice President Mike Pence became the latest prominent Republican to propose sunsetting Social Security and Medicare, telling Fox News that we can replace the New Deal with a better deal.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 17, 2023 at 6:11 am

    Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) has amended his 12-point Rescue America plan to say that his proposal to sunset all federal legislation in five years does not apply to Social Security, Medicare or the U.S. Navy, The Hill reports.

    • btomba_77

      Member
      February 22, 2023 at 4:18 pm

      [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2024-election%2Fmike-pence-trump-medicare-social-security-rcna71778]Pence sez cuts to Social Security and Medicare should be on the table[/link]

      The future of the major entitlement programs is quickly shaping up as a battleground for the 2024 Republican presidential primary, particularly between early frontrunners: Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. That is happening against the backdrop of President Joe Biden using his State of the Union address to criticize GOP proposals to shrink the entitlement programs, including a [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fmeet-the-press%2Fmeetthepressblog%2Frick-scott-adds-exception-medicare-social-security-plan-rcna71161]since-amended plan[/link] by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., that would have put them at risk of termination every five years.

      Trump has long positioned himself as a defender of Medicare and Social Security, and he is doing so again as he seeks a return to the presidency. While his annual budgets included proposals to reduce Medicare spending, they [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbpp.org%2Fblog%2Fmedicare-in-the-2021-trump-budget%23%3A%7E%3Atext%3DPresident%2520Trump%26%2339%3Bs%25202021%2520budget%2520proposes%2Cand%2520not%2520affect%2520beneficiaries%2520directly.]primarily targeted provider payments[/link] rather than benefits. His efforts to limit Social Security spending were aimed at cutting disability benefits, not checks for retirees.

      I think Dems have to like the fact that wether and how much to cut Medicare and SS is shaping up to be a key focus of the GOP presidential campaign.

      I’ll give him this, Trump knows the base… and there’s a reason why he says to leave the programs alone.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 28, 2023 at 4:01 am

    [h1][b]Bipartisan Group Mulls Lifting Social Security Retirement Age[/b][/h1]  
     
    A bipartisan group led by Sens. Angus King (I-ME) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is considering gradually raising the retirement age to about 70 as part of their legislation to overhaul Social Security, [link=https://www.semafor.com/article/02/27/2023/a-bipartisan-group-of-senators-are-talking-about-raising-the-retirement-age-on-social-security]Semafor[/link] reports.
     
    Other options on the table include changing the existing formula that calculates monthly benefits from one based on a workers average earnings over 35 years to a different formula thats based instead on the number of years spent working and paying into Social Security.
     

    • kaldridgewv2211

      Member
      February 28, 2023 at 7:26 am

      you can have your money when you’re dead.  I wish I had every single dollar I’ve paid into SS back and let it vest in a 0 fee index tracking fund for the past 20 years.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    March 1, 2023 at 5:37 am

    [b]Trump Ties GOP in Knots Over Social Security[/b][/h1]  
     
    [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/01/trump-gop-medicare-social-security-00084845]Politico[/link]: While the GOP once more actively pushed for changing both programs benefits, Trump has separated the party into two distinct camps Both Republican camps and even some Democrats agree that Trumps moves are politically effective. But some GOP members are angry to see their party freshly divided over fiscal austerity.

     

    • kaldridgewv2211

      Member
      March 1, 2023 at 5:50 am

      The GOP wants to take money from anything that helps the lower classes.  Cut medicare, medicaid, SS, SNAP, children etc….

      • btomba_77

        Member
        June 1, 2023 at 2:55 am

        [b]Rand Paul Will Force Vote on Social Security Cuts[/b][/h1]  
         
        Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he will force the Senate to vote this week on cutting total federal spending by 5 percent in each of the next two years, a proposal that would include Social Security and Medicare, [link=https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4029350-rand-paul-to-force-senate-vote-on-potential-cuts-to-social-security-medicare/?email=066c0990fa413d52c3842f29a42abb22ffa00eae&emaila=02c3337a6605235631b8cab2e023d54e&emailb=e0d37ab6f97ed06914f0e75a1ebed673001a81f7f84978ff9209f3e23f7ba5d3&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=05.31.23%20SR%20Rand%20Paul%20senate%20vote%20cuts%20social%20security]The Hill[/link] reports.
         
        Its an uncomfortable vote for Senate Republicans, one which it divides their conference.

         

        • kaldridgewv2211

          Member
          June 1, 2023 at 5:56 am

          Ran Paul is world class PoS.  Anytime I hear or read about him I totally understand why his neighbor beat the piss out of him.

          • btomba_77

            Member
            July 23, 2023 at 4:11 am

            [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/07/22/gop-social-security-trump-rivals-cuts/]https://www.washingtonpos…ity-trump-rivals-cuts/[/link]

            Trumps GOP rivals open door to cutting Social Security for younger people[/h1] [h2]Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence and Nikki Haley propose curbing spending on the program without affecting seniors[/h2]

             
            As the Republican Party becomes [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/18/young-voters-shift/?itid=lk_inline_manual_12]increasingly reliant on older voters for support[/link] and as Trump continues to exert heavy influence over the partys beliefs, GOP policymakers have followed the former presidents lead in steering clear of proposals to cut the program, with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) ruling that out in debt ceiling negotiations earlier this year with the White House.
             
            But concentrating potential cuts on the young, as the Trump challengers have proposed, has its downsides as well. The candidates posture risks alienating young voters who have already become increasingly alienated from the Republican Party. And cutting benefits for younger people leaves the bulk of the problem unresolved, experts say, given that the Social Security funding crisis is projected to arrive decades before millennials receive their first checks.

            [/QUOTE]https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1680598759112146944
             
             
            When people say that were going to somehow cut seniors, that is totally not true.  Talking about making changes for people in their 30s and their 40s so the programs viable thats a much different thing, and something I think theres going to need to be discussion on.  
             
            ~ Ron DeSantis