Graham Joins Loonies, Plans Government Shutdown

PoliticsJanuary 2011 • Views: 19,981

Amazingly, it seems the Republicans really are planning to fight against raising the debt ceiling, which, if they succeed in their obstructionist aims, would have catastrophic consequences.

And there appear to be no adults in charge of the GOP to talk them out of doing grievous harm to the nation. The fear of a black President has driven the entire party insane — even Lindsay Graham: Are There Grown-ups In The Republican Party? Can They Talk Some Sense Into The Party About The Debt Limit?

On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,”�Republican Senator Lindsey Graham�announced that he, too, was willing to engage in serious brinkmanship over the debt:

I will not vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term debt obligations, starting with Social Security, a real bipartisan effort to make sure that Social Security stays solvent, adjusting the age, looking at means tests for benefits. On the spending side, I’m not going to vote for debt ceiling increase unless we go back to 2008 spending levels, cutting discretionary spending.

As many others have noted, the demand of going back to 2008 spending levels is radical and, not coincidentally, highly unrealistic: According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it’d amount to a one-fifth cut in discretionary spending—forcing cuts that could damage the fragile recovery and starve programs like Pell Grants that most Americans value.�

And the alternative—failing to increase the debt ceiling? What precise effects would that have?

Jump to bottom

85 comments

darthstar Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:25:41am

Lindsey Graham is still trying to recover from being John McCain's BFF the day after the presidential election and is searching for his man-beads.

jamesfirecat Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:26:34am

Clearly once again the GOP has determined that once again they must be in the words of the current RNC chairman... the cow on the train tracks....

Charles Johnson Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:31:07am

The RNC debate is going on on C-SPAN. Every single politician is a social conservative. Right now they're all stressing how much they hate gay people.

Gus Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:32:46am

Federico Fellini meets Rod Serling. Let the farce begin!

calochortus Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:32:48am

re: #2 jamesfirecat

Clearly once again the GOP has determined that once again they must be in the words of the current RNC chairman... the cow on the train tracks...

Not being a largely Hindu country that could go badly for the cow...

Surabaya Stew Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:33:04am

I loved this quote from the first comment in the TNR article:

.... a terrific line by novelist/poet Mary Karr quoting her Texan grandmother: "A Republican can't enjoy his steak unless he knows someone else is starving."

Sounds mean to say, and I'm sure the MBF (Magic Blanace Fairy) can find a similar zinger re: the Dems, but this is the harsh reality we're facing now. Only thing is, all of us will be starving if this demented (non)plan from the GOP goes through.

Surabaya Stew Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:33:49am

re: #3 Charles

The RNC debate is going on on C-SPAN. Every single politician is a social conservative. Right now they're all stressing how much they hate gay people.

They hate Ken Mehlman?
/

jamesfirecat Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:34:03am

re: #6 Surabaya Stew

I loved this quote from the first comment in the TNR article:

... a terrific line by novelist/poet Mary Karr quoting her Texan grandmother: "A Republican can't enjoy his steak unless he knows someone else is starving."

Sounds mean to say, and I'm sure the MBF (Magic Blanace Fairy) can find a similar zinger re: the Dems, but this is the harsh reality we're facing now. Only thing is, all of us will be starving if this demented (non)plan from the GOP goes through.

//Those people who actually depend on the government for services are welfare queens who should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and be self sufficient!

Varek Raith Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:34:05am

re: #2 jamesfirecat

Clearly once again the GOP has determined that once again they must be in the words of the current RNC chairman... the cow on the train tracks...

Choo-choo vs cow = One asploded cow.

That's one...poor analogy, there chief.
XD

darthstar Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:34:38am

re: #7 Surabaya Stew

They hate Ken Mehlman?
/

If asked on camera, they probably never knew Ken Mehlman.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:35:28am

re: #3 Charles

The RNC debate is going on on C-SPAN. Every single politician is a social conservative. Right now they're all stressing how much they hate gay people.

I guess they already covered how much they love zygotes then?

darthstar Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:35:53am

re: #2 jamesfirecat

Clearly once again the GOP has determined that once again they must be in the words of the current RNC chairman... the cow on the train tracks...

In other words, you'd need to be a dumb fucker to chair the GOP.

Youtube Video

Surabaya Stew Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:36:09am

re: #10 darthstar

If asked on camera, they probably never knew Ken Mehlman.

Same way they don't know Michael Steele?
:-D

jaunte Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:36:59am

re: #3 Charles

Right now they're all stressing how much they hate gay people.

Like that's going to save a ton of money.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:37:34am

Graham is right about Social Security, IMHO. There's really no reason wealthy retirees need to get government welfare checks. And I can't wait to see all those "fiscally conservative" tea party folks tackle taking medicare away from wealthy old folks. LOL

Eeek! Death panels! Keep the government away from my medicare!

sigh

What, me worry? Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:38:49am

Before you're eligible to receive benefits like Pell Grants, disability, Medicare, social security, maybe they should ask to see your voter registration card. Then we could just eliminate those benefits for Republicans since they don't seem to like them much. Would save a ton of money and make everyone happy, no?

Gus Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:39:06am

re: #3 Charles

The RNC debate is going on on C-SPAN. Every single politician is a social conservative. Right now they're all stressing how much they hate gay people.

Great. I see that reactionary twit, Tucker Carlson, is moderating. Alongside the other weirdo, Grover Norquist.

RurouniKenshin Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:39:09am

It will be an absolute disaster for the country if they fail to raise the debt ceiling.

It will also be an absolute disaster for the Republican party.

But I don't think that trade is worth it.

jc717 Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:39:35am

I actually blame Obama for this. He's shown time and time again that he'll blink when pressed. GOP reps are playing hardball and think that he'll blink again, so why not try to extract concessions from him for something that should be a no brainier.

How is this situation any different than them not wanting to extend unemployment benefits unless all tax cuts were extended?

jamesfirecat Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:39:43am

re: #15 funky chicken

Graham is right about Social Security, IMHO. There's really no reason wealthy retirees need to get government welfare checks. And I can't wait to see all those "fiscally conservative" tea party folks tackle taking medicare away from wealthy old folks. LOL

Eeek! Death panels! Keep the government away from my medicare!

sigh

The sad thing is... this is actually a rather reasonable point. I mean everyone gets to collect social security once they reach the same age and they collect the same amount weather they're Jon McCain or just some old guy on the street..

The government giving more money to old people who already have paying jobs and large bank accounts seems to be a pretty good example of "waste' to me....

calochortus Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:40:16am

Maybe they can work on phasing out subsidies for the "big 5" crops. Oh, wait. There friends get those...

darthstar Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:41:08am

re: #19 jc717

I actually blame Obama for this. He's shown time and time again that he'll blink when pressed. GOP reps are playing hardball and think that he'll blink again, so why not try to extract concessions from him for something that should be a no brainier.

How is this situation any different than them not wanting to extend unemployment benefits unless all tax cuts were extended?

It's not President Obama's fault that Lindsey Graham is a petty asshole. Thank you, though, for explaining the GOP stance on accountability for one's own actions.

jamesfirecat Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:41:16am

re: #19 jc717

I actually blame Obama for this. He's shown time and time again that he'll blink when pressed. GOP reps are playing hardball and think that he'll blink again, so why not try to extract concessions from him for something that should be a no brainier.

How is this situation any different than them not wanting to extend unemployment benefits unless all tax cuts were extended?

That's like blaming people taking hostages on the fact that the police have shown they'll exchange them for Pizza....

calochortus Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:41:38am

re: #21 calochortus

Akk, I can't spell this morning-there=their.

darthstar Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:41:55am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

That's like blaming people taking hostages on the fact that the police have shown they'll exchange them for Pizza...

Well said, and worth repeating, hence my quoting in full.

allegro Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:42:18am

Can we at least put an end to the false propaganda point that Social Security has anything at all to do with the national debt? It does not. It never has. It has always been self-funding.

Gus Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:42:39am

What the hell? "If you're pro-abortion and pro-AIG you might not be a Republican"?

Varek Raith Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:44:48am

re: #12 darthstar

So you got a train. Big whoop, wanna fight about it?

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:47:04am

re: #27 Gus 802

What if I'm pro-abortion and anti-AIG?

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:51:11am

re: #26 allegro

Can we at least put an end to the false propaganda point that Social Security has anything at all to do with the national debt? It does not. It never has. It has always been self-funding.

Look up scheme, Ponzi. There's always been way more people paying SS taxes than retirees. The demographics aren't pleasant a few years ahead. With extended lifetimes and reduced birthrates, something needs to be done so SS won't go into the red. Increasing the retirement age and means testing for benefits both make sense.

And don't even start talking about Medicare. It's the real budget killer. But increasing the qualification age and means testing could help with Medicare also.

ihateronpaul Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:52:05am

oh this is going to be a mess
when they say "starve the beast" they SHOULD be talking about the military industrial complex. But they won't, my prediction is that when this is all set and done they will have "cut" defense spending by 5% or some similarly pathetic amount. As for "cuts" to anything else, don't fucking count on it. People love to talk the talk about cutting down government, but they NEVER walk the walk. and if they do, it's always a retreat from their "promises"

just sayin

Batman Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:52:21am

It's brilliant really. Anything that they can do to hurt the economy will only give them a boost and something to hit Obama with in the next presidential election. They can play to the base by saying they at least tried with this brilliant economic maneuver, but Obama's stink was just too awesome for the economy, and then pick up easily influenced I's and D's with a little look-how-shitty-things-are-under-Obama.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:52:34am

re: #26 allegro

One of the most annoying constant refrains has been scare-mongering about Social Security. It does need attention; it has nothing to do with the general budget.

I don't know how else to view this, other than that the GOP has seen that they have no chance of regaining dominance in the near or long-term, and are actively attempting to fuck up the system. It's insane.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:53:30am

re: #30 funky chicken

Look up scheme, Ponzi. There's always been way more people paying SS taxes than retirees.

Nope. It's a bolus, not a pyramid.

The demographics aren't pleasant a few years ahead. With extended lifetimes and reduced birthrates, something needs to be done so SS won't go into the red. Increasing the retirement age and means testing for benefits both make sense.

So would raising the cap on contributions.

And don't even start talking about Medicare. It's the real budget killer. But increasing the qualification age and means testing could help with Medicare also.

How much would that cost in uninsured hospital admissions, then?

darthstar Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:54:37am

re: #30 funky chicken

And don't even start talking about Medicare. It's the real budget killer. But increasing the qualification age and means testing could help with Medicare also.

Medicare has a 3.5% administrative operating cost. Private insurers run about 15%. Medicare is far more economical and better for the budget than supplementing private insurers.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:56:09am

I read the whole transcript over at (I think?) MSNBC, and Graham also said he thinks we need a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. No thanks, dude.

But it struck me that "Mr. Fiscal Conservative" Pat Toomey wouldn't name any specific programs he would cut...just more general BS.

At least Graham was brave enough to mention specifics.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:57:29am

re: #36 funky chicken

What specifics did he mention?

What, me worry? Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:57:53am

re: #30 funky chicken

Look up scheme, Ponzi. There's always been way more people paying SS taxes than retirees. The demographics aren't pleasant a few years ahead. With extended lifetimes and reduced birthrates, something needs to be done so SS won't go into the red. Increasing the retirement age and means testing for benefits both make sense.

And don't even start talking about Medicare. It's the real budget killer. But increasing the qualification age and means testing could help with Medicare also.

Wow. If I retire at 62, I get about $1500. If at 65, about $2000 and at 70 about $2500. How much more should they increase the age? Until I'm dead? Well that would work, I guess, because I'm not around to use it.

The elderly rely on Medicare and SS. I don't care if you're benefit is $500 a month. That means life or death to some people.

You can't tell me there's no way to cut the budget other than on the backs of the poor and elderly. I don't accept that.

allegro Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:57:53am

re: #30 funky chicken

Look up scheme, Ponzi.

Look up investments, interest.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:58:04am

re: #35 darthstar

Medicare has a 3.5% administrative operating cost. Private insurers run about 15%. Medicare is far more economical and better for the budget than supplementing private insurers.

Why supplement private insurers for the wealthy?

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:58:28am

re: #38 marjoriemoon

Social Security is not even part of the budget. It's a red herring.

What, me worry? Mon, Jan 3, 2011 10:59:19am

re: #36 funky chicken

I read the whole transcript over at (I think?) MSNBC, and Graham also said he thinks we need a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. No thanks, dude.

But it struck me that "Mr. Fiscal Conservative" Pat Toomey wouldn't name any specific programs he would cut...just more general BS.

At least Graham was brave enough to mention specifics.

Graham wants to spend trillions in Afghanistan and yet put the elderly in this country under a bridge? He has his priorities screwed up.

jc717 Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:00:15am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

That's like blaming people taking hostages on the fact that the police have shown they'll exchange them for Pizza...

If the hostage takers are armed with squirt guns (obviously bluffing and unwilling to commit political suicide), and the police still roll over and give them not only pizza but a private jet to take them around the world and then offer a heartfelt 'thank you' for working together, then yes, it's just like that.

allegro Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:00:35am

re: #42 marjoriemoon

Graham wants to spend trillions in Afghanistan and yet put the elderly in this country under a bridge? He has his priorities screwed up.

From that description alone, it would be safe to assume his political affiliation.

What, me worry? Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:00:53am

re: #41 Obdicut

Social Security is not even part of the budget. It's a red herring.

It is, but I'm tired of them (Republican politicians) bringing it. Is it because it's a "socialist agenda"? or that they think they don't need it? Or the elderly don't matter? I don't get it.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:01:31am

re: #37 Obdicut

Graham brought up increasing the SS retirement age to 67 and means testing for benefits, and specifically said that people like Dick Gregory and himself shouldn't get SS benefits because they don't need them.

He also brought up Medicare part D, which was a GOP creation whose costs are spiraling out of control. He basically said that GOP members should be willing to slash at entitlements, especially GOP created ones, if they are gonna talk about slashing government spending.

And then Toomey, "well, we don't have to get so specific" about things they're gonna cut.

spit

jamesfirecat Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:02:17am

re: #43 jc717

If the hostage takers are armed with squirt guns (obviously bluffing and unwilling to commit political suicide), and the police still roll over and give them not only pizza but a private jet to take them around the world and then offer a heartfelt 'thank you' for working together, then yes, it's just like that.

The hostage takers are armed with real guns though, they have the capability to do what they say... they can block the budget if they stand shoulder to shoulder and vote as a group can't they?

They would have to be crazy to do it... but those are no squirt guns they're holding.

gamark Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:04:39am

re: #33 Obdicut

One of the most annoying constant refrains has been scare-mongering about Social Security. It does need attention; it has nothing to do with the general budget.

It has a lot to do with the general budget. There is no "lock box". SS funds intermingle with general funds and the SS surplus offsets the national budget to make it look better than it otherwise would. Smoke and mirrors. Bread and circuses. "Debt ceiling"? What a joke. It is meaningless.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:05:08am

re: #46 funky chicken

Graham brought up increasing the SS retirement age to 67 and means testing for benefits, and specifically said that people like Dick Gregory and himself shouldn't get SS benefits because they don't need them.

Do you understand SS is not part of the general budget?

He also brought up Medicare part D, which was a GOP creation whose costs are spiraling out of control. He basically said that GOP members should be willing to slash at entitlements, especially GOP created ones, if they are gonna talk about slashing government spending.

So that is one thing he talked about. Specific, not specifics.

And then Toomey, "well, we don't have to get so specific" about things they're gonna cut.

I agree jerks like that suck. I'm saying you're giving Graham too much credit, since invoking SS is a red herring.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:05:21am

re: #38 marjoriemoon

Wow. If I retire at 62, I get about $1500. If at 65, about $2000 and at 70 about $2500. How much more should they increase the age? Until I'm dead? Well that would work, I guess, because I'm not around to use it.

The elderly rely on Medicare and SS. I don't care if you're benefit is $500 a month. That means life or death to some people.

You can't tell me there's no way to cut the budget other than on the backs of the poor and elderly. I don't accept that.

67's a good compromise. When SS and Medicare were introduced, very few people lived into their 80s and 90s. Due to advances in medical science and nutrition and workplace safety improvements, many more are living longer. Medicare, in particular, is costing too much as currently constructed.

And means testing means that people wouldn't be eligible to get their government checks if they are wealthy. That's got nothing about "on the backs of the poor and elderly" to it.

Decatur Deb Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:05:23am

re: #47 jamesfirecat

The hostage takers are armed with real guns though, they have the capability to do what they say... they can block the budget if they stand shoulder to shoulder and vote as a group can't they?

They would have to be crazy to do it... but those are no squirt guns they're holding.

Blocking the budget is not an all-or-nothing thing. If they do it, that mostly means they'll soon be up all night unblocking it. There would be some cost in disruption while they play chicken.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:05:38am

re: #48 gamark

It has a lot to do with the general budget. There is no "lock box". SS funds intermingle with general funds and the SS surplus offsets the national budget to make it look better than it otherwise would. Smoke and mirrors. Bread and circuses. "Debt ceiling"? What a joke. It is meaningless.

But SS is self-funding, it doesn't get paid for from the general budget. Cutting SS does nothing to fix the general budget.

allegro Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:08:44am

re: #52 Obdicut

But SS is self-funding, it doesn't get paid for from the general budget. Cutting SS does nothing to fix the general budget.

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat...

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:11:22am

re: #52 Obdicut

But SS is self-funding, it doesn't get paid for from the general budget. Cutting SS does nothing to fix the general budget.

It is self-funding now. In 25 years, not so much.

It's smart to talk about solutions for that problem now rather than waiting for it to explode in our faces, yes?

What, me worry? Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:12:25am

re: #50 funky chicken

67's a good compromise. When SS and Medicare were introduced, very few people lived into their 80s and 90s. Due to advances in medical science and nutrition and workplace safety improvements, many more are living longer. Medicare, in particular, is costing too much as currently constructed.

And means testing means that people wouldn't be eligible to get their government checks if they are wealthy. That's got nothing about "on the backs of the poor and elderly" to it.

People are indeed living longer. That doesn't mean they want to break their backs working until their dead.

As of today, I have my choice of retiring age, 62, 65 or 70. My benefits increase the longer I wait. My g/f who just turned 62 had the option of going at 59 1/2. So if they raise it to 67, then the ceiling will also go up, from 70 to what? 73 or 75? Who the hell wants to work that long?

The difference for a poor working stiff (i.e. middle class) like me is between $1500 and $2500. You bet I'm going to stick it out for the extra $1000 because unless I hit the lotto, I'll need it. And that sucks.

It is on the backs of the elderly and the poor because they are the ones who rely on the Pell grants, medicare, SS and all those pesky "entitlement" programs.

gamark Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:13:13am

re: #52 Obdicut

But SS is self-funding,

Currently, but that is projected to change pretty soon. Meanwhile, all SS surpluses go into the general budget (in exchange for treasury notes). Sort of like me taking my household surplus, spending it and replacing it with an IOU from myself. (Then crowing about how much money I have saved)

ihateronpaul Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:14:50am

re: #56 gamark

Currently, but that is projected to change pretty soon. Meanwhile, all SS surpluses go into the general budget (in exchange for treasury notes). Sort of like me taking my household surplus, spending it and replacing it with an IOU from myself. (Then crowing about how much money I have saved)

hm maybe if the surplus went into the fund then it wouldn't go broke??

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:20:09am

re: #57 ihateronpaul

hm maybe if the surplus went into the fund then it wouldn't go broke??

LOL....That's just crazy talk, fella!

Seriously, good luck getting congress to do that. So we're stuck with increasing retirement age, means testing, or raising the cap on the taxable portion of salary above (?) the first 90,000 a year.

I'd support all of the above, actually.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:24:24am

re: #54 funky chicken

It is self-funding now. In 25 years, not so much.

It's smart to talk about solutions for that problem now rather than waiting for it to explode in our faces, yes?

Sure. But talking about it now and pretending it has to do with lowering the deficit, as Graham is doing, is a red herring.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:28:34am

re: #42 marjoriemoon

Graham wants to spend trillions in Afghanistan and yet put the elderly in this country under a bridge? He has his priorities screwed up.

And I'm in full agreement on his priorities re: Afghanistan. I think we should pack up and get the hell out of there starting today. I do imagine that would have a salubrious effect on the US government's budget.

But SS and Medicare are going to run into fiscal problems within 20 to 30 years. We need to discuss these problems in a responsible way now. Your angry reaction shows exactly why politicians won't do it.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:31:39am

I will not vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term debt obligations, starting with Social Security, a real bipartisan effort to make sure that Social Security stays solvent, adjusting the age, looking at means tests for benefits.

I'm not sure he's saying that SS is part of deficit spending. His linkage is awkward, and, like I said, his belief that a permanent military presence in Afghanistan is in any way a good idea is crazy, IMHO.

I just gave him props for bringing up a real sore thumb issue that will eventually need to be addressed, because it is so important to so many people.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:32:19am

re: #61 funky chicken

I think you're giving him props for bringing up a red herring and adding to the confusion over the issue.

What, me worry? Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:33:28am

re: #60 funky chicken

And I'm in full agreement on his priorities re: Afghanistan. I think we should pack up and get the hell out of there starting today. I do imagine that would have a salubrious effect on the US government's budget.

But SS and Medicare are going to run into fiscal problems within 20 to 30 years. We need to discuss these problems in a responsible way now. Your angry reaction shows exactly why politicians won't do it.

I'm angry because this isn't an agenda of theirs that started today. It's been going on for decades. They're just getting more people on board with their "cut entitlement programs" rhetoric. It's anti-government talk (politicians making anti-government talk is actually quite comical), but it's the buzzword of the day and it's selling.

Romantic Heretic Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:36:27am

What amazes me is that the GOP can pretend they give a flying fuck about the debt when hideously irresponsible actions like extending the Bush tax cuts show they don't, not at all.

Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

gamark Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:39:54am

re: #59 Obdicut

Sure. But talking about it now and pretending it has to do with lowering the deficit, as Graham is doing, is a red herring.

If he's talking about steps to increase the SS surplus, then that surplus will lower the deficit per our current "smoke and mirrors" accounting method. I don't see a red herring. Just more of the same partisan posturing by all sides.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:42:04am

re: #65 gamark

That's even more disingenuous, then. He's talking about defunding Social Security in order to pay for the general budget.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:42:49am

re: #65 gamark

Oh ugh, I hadn't even thought of that. Very cynical. Also possibly accurate.

garhighway Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:48:25am

re: #56 gamark

Currently, but that is projected to change pretty soon. Meanwhile, all SS surpluses go into the general budget (in exchange for treasury notes). Sort of like me taking my household surplus, spending it and replacing it with an IOU from myself. (Then crowing about how much money I have saved)

So SS buying T notes with their surplus is inappropriate? What would you have them do with that surplus? How would you have them invest it? It seems to me like T notes are a pretty safe bet. Name something safer.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 11:51:43am

re: #66 Obdicut

That's even more disingenuous, then. He's talking about defunding Social Security in order to pay for the general budget.

Not defunding it. That would mean cutting SS taxes...which a slimebag like Pat Toomey would probably propose, so the general fund would shrink, which would lead to crazy cuts in government entities like the FDA, USDA, and OSHA. He's talking about cutting SS eligibility, and he did stress for wealthy people like himself a couple of times.

I've often wondered why only the first 90 grand of a person's income is subject to SS taxes...not that I've ever seen a paycheck over that amount to see how they calculate it or anything.

So, there are solutions to the future fiscal problems...very few elected officials are willing to actually discuss real ones though. You get douchebags like Toomey who think the solution is privatization, and douchebags on the other side who scream "grandma's gonna have to eat cat food! and become homeless!" every time the issue is raised.

gamark Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:02:31pm

re: #68 garhighway

It seems to me like T notes are a pretty safe bet. Name something safer.

GOLD!

Seriously though, times are changing. Treasury bonds are not nearly as "rock solid" to investors as they once were. US debt is to blame for that. In any case, you gave me a great idea. Instead of spending my personal surplus and replacing it with IOUs, I can replace it with interest bearing IOUs and then brag about saving even more money!

garhighway Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:07:52pm

re: #70 gamark

GOLD!

Seriously though, times are changing. Treasury bonds are not nearly as "rock solid" to investors as they once were. US debt is to blame for that. In any case, you gave me a great idea. Instead of spending my personal surplus and replacing it with IOUs, I can replace it with interest bearing IOUs and then brag about saving even more money!

Name a safer investment.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:08:39pm

re: #69 funky chicken

Not defunding it. That would mean cutting SS taxes

No, I'm not making myself clear.

By saying that he wants to cut payments from SS without cutting taxes, in order to move money from SS to the general fund, he is saying he wants to defund SS in order to put that money in the general budget.

and douchebags on the other side who scream "grandma's gonna have to eat cat food! and become homeless!" every time the issue is raised.

These people don't really exist. Toomey does.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:16:51pm

I was a Paul Tsongas supporter in 1991/1992. He talked about Social Security and Medicare back then, and he was definitely a liberal.

[Link: www.time.com...]

This isn't a wingnut issue, or at least it didn't used to be.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:18:41pm

re: #72 Obdicut

No, I'm not making myself clear.

By saying that he wants to cut payments from SS without cutting taxes, in order to move money from SS to the general fund, he is saying he wants to defund SS in order to put that money in the general budget.

These people don't really exist. Toomey does.

Oh gosh, of course they do. I have seen several TV commercials during elections showing the old folks eating pet food. Maybe they were Clinton commercials, who knows? But yeah, people say that crazy stuff.

funky chicken Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:21:37pm

[Link: action.now.org...]

Take Action with NOW

Oppose the "Cat Food" Commission -- Build the Campaign Against Raising the Retirement Age

Say NO to Cutting Seniors' Benefits - Your help is needed to build opposition in Congress against dramatic Social Security benefit cuts we expect will be proposed by President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Dominated by conservatives, the group has been dubbed the "Cat Food" Commission because of their apparent intention to push millions of people -- especially women -- out of the middle class and into poverty

google "social security cat food"

Obdicut Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:23:59pm

re: #75 funky chicken

The difference is that Toomey is a representative.

The two sides are not equally in balance. Toomey really exists, really is a representative.

Of course there's always hysterics on the sidelines-- but Toomey is actually an elected official.

gamark Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:27:39pm

re: #71 garhighway

Name a safer investment.

What are your goals and time horizon?

garhighway Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:30:14pm

re: #77 gamark

What are your goals and time horizon?

What do either of those have to do with safety?

C'mon! You say investing in T notes is bogus. Give us a better alternative. They have to put the money into something. Tell us a better option.

gamark Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:45:32pm

re: #78 garhighway

What do either of those have to do with safety?

Safety is a relative thing. What's the safest way to travel? Depends on how far you are going and how fast you want to get there.

C'mon! You say investing in T notes is bogus.

No I didn't.

garhighway Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:52:41pm

re: #79 gamark

No I didn't.

You said:

Meanwhile, all SS surpluses go into the general budget (in exchange for treasury notes). Sort of like me taking my household surplus, spending it and replacing it with an IOU from myself. (Then crowing about how much money I have saved)

My question to you, which you have studiously ducked, is how you would have the SS folks invest those surplus dollars.

Right now they buy T notes. You speak critically of that. OK: propose a better alternative.

simoom Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:58:46pm

Top Google News search result on "debt ceiling":

US News & World Report: Should Congress Raise the U.S. Debt Ceiling?

...
What do you think? Should Congress raise the debt ceiling? Take our poll and post your thoughts below.

Hey Media -- can we please not present this as something reasonable people should actual be debating? K-thx-bai.

garhighway Mon, Jan 3, 2011 1:02:07pm

re: #81 simoom

We're eating more beets!

gamark Mon, Jan 3, 2011 1:17:36pm

re: #80 garhighway

My question to you, which you have studiously ducked, is how you would have the SS folks invest those surplus dollars.

Right now they buy T notes. You speak critically of that. OK: propose a better alternative.

I speak critically of the accounting trick, not the investment.

Why does the government purchase T-bills with the surplus anyway? The only reason is to use that money to offset the deficit while still keeping a straight face when saying the surplus is still there. Smoke and mirrors. People running private investment funds would go to jail for shenanigans like that.

Tigger2 Mon, Jan 3, 2011 1:35:41pm

They can start by stopping the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires.

"will not vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term debt obligations"

garhighway Mon, Jan 3, 2011 1:41:49pm

re: #83 gamark

I speak critically of the accounting trick, not the investment.

Why does the government purchase T-bills with the surplus anyway? Again, why not? What else should they invest it in?The only reason is to use that money to offset the deficit while still keeping a straight face when saying the surplus is still there. Or could it be to invest the money safely? Smoke and mirrors. People running private investment funds would go to jail for shenanigans like that.No they wouldn't. They don't get in trouble for investing money safely and keeping their various accounts separate.

If we are running SS like it isn't fully consolidated into the Federal budget, but are instead keeping it separate (which I assume you think is appropriate), then when it runs a surplus, it has to do SOMETHING with the money. It could do nothing, and leave it in a vault somewhere, or it can invest it. Currently, it is invested in T notes. Which, as I noted, are a VERY safe way to invest the money.

So do you disagree with the T notes, or do you think SS should be fully collapsed into the Federal budget? Or have you come up with a third option?

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Graham Joins Loonies, Plans Government Shutdown

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud