pres threatening to withhold aug ssdi pymtns

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,473
Location
Ashland, Oregon
It's looking more and more like this is all going to get resolved on time. A number of very recent news article are pointing in that direction. Should ensure timely arrival of SS checks. Nothing guaranteed yet, but it looks better than it has in quite a while.
 

Misfit Toy

Senior Member
Messages
4,178
Location
USA
It's so depressing and my mother wonders why I don't watch the news. Yes, many of us are frightened. Dare I say, "Damn republicans." Yup, I said it.
 

Andrew

Senior Member
Messages
2,523
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I think the problem boils down to the fact that SS is not much more than a Ponzi scheme, and when this started to unravel the government failed to modify it into a subsidized investment-based fund that generates some its own money. SS should be run like a retirement fund, not a government welfare program.

Anyway, I would want to see the details of these millionaire taxes. With inflation, having 1 million in equity these days is like being upper middle class several decades years ago.
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,473
Location
Ashland, Oregon
Budget Woes Top List of Concerns in Afghanistan

We're not the only ones being affected by this unnecessary debacle going on in Washington. Pretty sad when military personnel are putting their lives on the line in a war zone, and are worried whether they'll be getting their next paycheck.

Finance ministers from around the globe are warning of "disastrous consequences" if the US were to default on its debt. Sure is reassuring to hear from those competent and responsible tea party folks there really is nothing to worry about should default happen. :rolleyes:
...................................................

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is holding troop talks throughout the country and is being peppered with questions about the U.S. debt crisis and the future of military benefits.

Budget Woes Top List of Concerns in Afghanistan
 

Tristen

Senior Member
Messages
638
Location
Northern Ca. USA
We've been sliding into a scary economic crisis for some time, nearing meltdown. But since I'm adverse to getting involved in detailed political discussions about who/what's right and wrong, I'll just keep it simple with how it affects me personally: For 40 years, I've had huge amounts of SS withheld in my payroll taxes, supposedly mine and put away for my retirement or disability. The money I am receiving on SSDI is mine. It's not some charity or welfare that I receive dependent upon the state of our economy. I've most likely paid in more than I could ever draw out. They made me pay it in, and they should have to pay it back as promised.
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,473
Location
Ashland, Oregon
I'm adverse to getting involved in detailed political discussions about who/what's right and wrong. So, without going there, I'll just keep it simple with how it affects me personally: For 40 years, I've had huge amounts of SS withheld in my payroll taxes, supposedly mine and put away for my retirement or disability. The money I am receiving on SSDI is mine. It's not some charity or welfare that I receive dependent upon the state of our economy. I've most likely paid in more than I could ever draw out. They made me pay it in, and they should have to pay it back as promised.

Hi Tristen,

Without getting involved in a political discussion, here's what happened to all that money you and millions of others have paid in over the years. It was all, by law, lent to the federal government. This amount, I think around $3 trillion, is in what's called the social security trust fund. This is part of the total federal debt of over $14 trillion.

Well, this trust fund is only as good as the ability of the US government to repay that money when it comes due. This ability to repay this money to social security recipients was being put in jeopardy by the current stalemate in Washington. SS recipients feel entitled to their money, but so do our military personnel, companies that contract with the US government, etc.

If the government isn't allowed to borrow money to pay all these obligations, then somebody has to end up not being paid. All Democrats and most Republicans realize this is not acceptable. The tea party caucus of the Republican party however thinks this is exactly what should happen, because it would force the government to not add to the national debt. Tea party candidate for President Michelle Bachman is very adamant that this is the best approach to take.
 

Tristen

Senior Member
Messages
638
Location
Northern Ca. USA
Hi Tristen,

Without getting involved in a political discussion, here's what happened to all that money you and millions of others have paid in over the years. It was all, by law, lent to the federal government. This amount, I think around $3 trillion, is in what's called the social security trust fund. This is part of the total federal debt of over $14 trillion.

Well, this trust fund is only as good as the ability of the US government to repay that money when it comes due. This ability to repay this money to social security recipients was being put in jeopardy by the current stalemate in Washington. SS recipients feel entitled to their money, but so do our military personnel, companies that contract with the US government, etc.

If the government isn't allowed to borrow money to pay all these obligations, then somebody has to end up not being paid. All Democrats and most Republicans realize this is not acceptable. The tea party caucus of the Republican party however thinks this is exactly what should happen, because it would force the government to not add to the national debt. Tea party candidate for President Michelle Bachman is very adamant that this is the best approach to take.

Thanks Wayne, concise and to the point. For the most part, I understand what has happened to the SS fund, and the reasons for the economic crisis and the current stalemate. I just tend to avoid discussions on political views and opinions. For now, I'm just concerned with how it's affecting my life and others who deserve better.
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
Social security checks will definitely go out.

As I posted before, the way these are done they are not paid out of the general budget and even though restructuring is badly needed to keep the programs solvent, there is enough money to last at least through October without having to dip into the general treasury to repay some of those IOU's (because Congress raids the SS "Trust" Fund to use those dollars for whatever else it needs, or thinks would be neat, or to pay back donors with bailouts or subsidies, or whatever).

Social Security, veterans and Medicare checks would continue to be disbursed, although there could be a delay in services for new registrants and those who have filed a change of address form.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gove...eto-house-republican/story?id=13314777&page=3

Unfortunately, military pay may be delayed. I read that usually there is an executive order to keep them payed, but there doesn't seem to be one this time.
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
It's a mischaracterization of the Tea Party to say they are in favor of default. What the freshman and the Tea Party want to do is to change the way DC does business so that it doesn't continue to spend money we don't have--in order to ensure that programs such as Social Security and Medicaid continue solvent, among other goals.

We are committed to changing the way Washington does business by making cuts and reforms that end the days of deficit spending. By putting our nation on a path to fiscal security, we will ensure economic prosperity and stronger job creation in America. That effort will require far more spending reductions in the months and years ahead as well as reforms to our health and retirement programs and comprehensive tax reform.
Marco Rubio (Townhall.com)


Here is Olympia Snowe (ME, widely regarded as a RINO, or Republican in Name Only--she's the most frequent attrition to what would otherwise be a straight Democrat partlyline vote) and Jim DeMint (SC, does not hesitate to identify himself with the TEA, taxed enough already, party) writing an article together:

Whatever happens when President Obama meets with congressional leaders of both parties at the White House today [July 7], no long-term solution is on the table for the spending habits in Washington that have endangered the prosperity of future generations. With our federal debt exceeding $14 trillionnearly 100% of our gross domestic productfiscal calamity is jeopardizing our standard of living and undermining our national security.

...

The American people who will vote on such an amendment understand the basic financial rules that Washington has been breaking. In the real world, if a household brought in $44,000 annually but spent $74,000 by borrowing $30,000 each year to sustain its spending habits, such behavior would be considered reckless and irresponsible.

Nonetheless, the federal government is doing exactly that on an unimaginable scale, running historic deficits in excess of a trillion dollars for three consecutive years and borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent. Our government has balanced its budget only five times in half a century.

...

If Congress increases our national debt ceiling next month without permanent, structural budget reforms, we will signal to taxpayers and bond markets alike that Washington is still in denial. Whatever agreement is reached, everyone will know that future Congresses are not obligated to follow it. As a result, the only way to compel lawmakers to maintain their responsibility forever is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

...

A constitutional amendment to balance the budget is imperative if we are to provide continuity of fiscal responsibility, and ensure we never return to the recklessness of the past and present. It's time Congress passed the amendment and gave the statesand "We the People"their say.


DeMint's latest press release reiterating that a balanced budget amendment is necessary to prevent "economic disaster"

Jim DeMint on earmarks


Here is a blog with some very nice charts which illustrate the answer to the question: do we have a revenue problem or a spending problem? (hint, Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, and Paul Ryan are right; the charts should convince you!)


http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/05/video-paul-ryan-explains-plan-to-save-medicare/

Much of the lefts criticism focuses on Ryans proposal to provide premium support to Medicare enrollees, assisting them to purchase a health care plan of their choice. As Heritages Robert Moffit and Kathryn Nix write, its modeled after the plan that federal workers and employees enjoy, and it would introduce intense competition in a consumer-driven market, which has historically slowed the growth of health care costs and increased patient satisfaction.

House Republicans' plan and setting the record straight on Ryan's plan (because the media is partisan and cannot understand, therefore cannot explain, any non-Democrat approach to anything)

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Sto...for-medicare-vouchers-vs-premium-support.aspx

Thomas Buchmueller, a health economist at the University of Michigan, said the plan sounds much like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program but also like the exchanges being set up in the health law. In the FEHBP model the government provides a set financial contribution each year.

...

Alice Rivlin, who co-authored a Medicare overhaul plan with Ryan and was budget director for President Clinton, said the premium support concept has backers in both parties. It doesnt strike me as a particularly Democratic or Republican idea once you think that you need to do something, she said.
 
Messages
877
One quick comment. I think all parties/politicians agree(say) spending cuts and deficit reductions need to happen.

I think the disagreement comes from what is cut (ie social security or wars) and if sudden cuts will be a shock to the economic recovery.

I personally think the wars and chasing Islamic extrememist in Iraq, Afghanitstan, Packistan, Egypt Lybia, Tunisa, Syria, were unproductive. Not to mention all the medical care those vets will take over the next decades.

If all the trillions spent in those wars were invested in homeland security, infrastructure, and paying down the debt. I think the country would be way better off than it is now.

I would have preferred to do without the $4 trillion Medicare part D giveaway to big pharma as well.
 
Messages
877
I would like to add. Even though I agree with what Obama says on TV, I disagree what what he does. More wars, giveaway to banksters. I don't know if he is being terribly manipulated and leveraged or what is going on.

I fear more what would happen if Mccain or Sarah Palin were in office.

It all probably a disaster and both parties are probably answering to the Elites.

There is some fantastic real world analysis of the current presidency situation in the comments section of this article below.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/matt-stoller-what-presidency.html#comment-438308
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,473
Location
Ashland, Oregon
Even though I agree with what Obama says on TV, I disagree what what he does. More wars, giveaway to banksters. I don't know if he is being terribly manipulated and leveraged or what is going on.

Hi Mark,

Just a quick note to say I agree with all your points. I'm also dismayed by many of Obama's decisions, including his refusal to responsibly confront the deficit/debt problem early on in his Presidency; but I realize things could be so much worse under McCain/Palin. You sound like an Independent like myself.

Wayne
 
Messages
877
Thanks Wayne. I consider myself an independent too.

I read all your earlier posts and it seems like we are on the same page. Good point.

These forums have been quite educational, and interesting to see how each person interprets things.

Things might get very interesting if Ron Paul gets the republican nomination. I'm not saying I'd vote for him, but think he is more popular than the media gives credit. I noticed an older video where he has been very consistent in his opinions on the wars. I think he might be consistent on other issues too. Seems pretty clear what one would get with him in office and I agree with most of what he wants. What do ya think?
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,473
Location
Ashland, Oregon
I thought this piece of news was interesting, and fit in with the tenor of this thread. I think it's interesting to note that the top 1% of our population control more wealth than the bottom 90%. I fully realize the nation's budget deficit can't be fixed just by taxing the super-rich, but I see nothing wrong with asking them to pay at least the same rate as other people who earn a tiny fraction of what they do.
.......................................................

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett wants to pay higher taxes.

In an op-ed in the New York Times, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway urged politicians in Washington to raise taxes on the "mega-rich" who have been "coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress."

Buffett, who has repeatedly argued for higher taxes on the rich, said the tax rate on his 2010 taxable income was about 17.4 percent, lower than any of the other people who work for him. Their rates ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent, he said.

The oracle of Omaha, as he is known, called on the newly-created "super committee" of 12 lawmakers tasked with improving the nation's fiscal health to immediately raise taxes on the richest 0.3 percent of Americans, though he declined to specify what he thinks the rate should be.
 
Back