Pages

Jump to bottom

27 comments

1 The Optimist  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 11:13:30am

All of it.
Of course, high speed trains between Tampa and Miami are in the base budget and do not count as overruns.

2 MinisterO  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 11:46:56am

I would have guessed zero. The CBO projected a surplus for this and the next few years until recently. Blame high unemployment and poor wage growth for the change.

FY2011 SS deficit is projected to be $130B, or about 8% of the total federal deficit, according to probably reliable sources citing the CBO. I haven't seen the CBO report.

It would have been only $45B, were it not for the temporary payroll tax cut that was passed with the extensions to the Bush tax cuts.

3 Bulworth  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 11:57:46am

$0

Social Security's been running surpluses for three decades, surpluses that have been spent by the federal government on other government programs and used to cover up deficits caused by income tax cuts.

4 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 12:07:31pm

re: #1 Venezuela lover

All of it.
Of course, high speed trains between Tampa and Miami are in the base budget and do not count as overruns.

Intriguing answer, since SS, as a stand-alone fund, is not part of the budget.

5 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 12:16:05pm

re: #2 MinisterO

I would have guessed zero. The CBO projected a surplus for this and the next few years until recently. Blame high unemployment and poor wage growth for the change.

FY2011 SS deficit is projected to be $130B, or about 8% of the total federal deficit, according to probably reliable sources citing the CBO. I haven't seen the CBO report.

It would have been only $45B, were it not for the temporary payroll tax cut that was passed with the extensions to the Bush tax cuts.

I appreciate your well thought out response.
Whereas it may be that there is a projected $130B shortfall of receipts over benefits paid out, that would reduce the SS fund, i.e., it would not add to the "deficit", since SS is a stand-alone fund.

mz

6 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 12:22:33pm

re: #3 Bulworth

$0

Social Security's been running surpluses for three decades, surpluses that have been spent by the federal government on other government programs and used to cover up deficits caused by income tax cuts.

Obviously, the correct answer, $0.00.

But the 2nd part may be not true.
The SS fund purchases treasuries, which pay interest to the SS fund, just like any other holder of treasuries.

You, still, win in an easy trot.

Thanks for your response.

All MUST ask his or her Senator and Representative this same question.
The answers will vary and should be fascinating and telling...................

mz

7 Bulworth  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 12:38:55pm

Well, to expand a bit, I wasn't disagreeing with Minister0's comment. The gap between incoming payroll tax revenue and benefit outgo has arrived sooner than expected. But as long as there is money in the Trust Fund (or there is money that is owed the TF by the federal government, however you want to think of it), then full benefits can still be paid. So, in effect, in cases of the SS cash flow deficit, the federal government does make up the difference from general revenue, but it is general revenue the overall federal budget owes the TR.

SS also derives income from interest on the treasury issues as well as from the tax on Social Security benefits for higher income retirees, although this latter source is not a significant part of SS revenue.

8 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 1:04:47pm

re: #7 Bulworth

Well, to expand a bit, I wasn't disagreeing with Minister0's comment. The gap between incoming payroll tax revenue and benefit outgo has arrived sooner than expected. But as long as there is money in the Trust Fund (or there is money that is owed the TF by the federal government, however you want to think of it), then full benefits can still be paid. So, in effect, in cases of the SS cash flow deficit, the federal government does make up the difference from general revenue, but it is general revenue the overall federal budget owes the TR.

SS also derives income from interest on the treasury issues as well as from the tax on Social Security benefits for higher income retirees, although this latter source is not a significant part of SS revenue.

You should have disagreed with MinisterO's comment, since it was incorrect.

Further, your assessment of negative cash flows of SS was incorrect. The negative cash flow only reduces the balance of the SS fund, i.e., the shortfall is NOT taken from the federal budget.
It may be that the shortfall causes the SS fund to sell treasuries and will not be a purchaser of newly issued treasuries, except for the recycling of treasury maturities.

Again, thanks for your comment.

PLEASE ASK YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE:
Approximately what portion of the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, is attributable to Social Security?

mz

9 MinisterO  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 1:59:11pm

You guys are confusing cash flow and cash balance. The trust fund still has a positive balance. But that wasn't the question.

The federal deficit is, by definition, the difference between federal outlays and federal revenues. The outlays include social security payments and the revenues include the social security payroll tax. The difference between these two is projected to be $130B.

Social security's deficit is included in the federal deficit, and makes up about 8% of it.

10 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 3:49:15pm

re: #9 Minister

You guys are confusing cash flow and cash balance. The trust fund still has a positive balance. But that wasn't the question.

The federal deficit is, by definition, the difference between federal outlays and federal revenues. The outlays include social security payments and the revenues include the social security payroll tax. The difference between these two is projected to be $130B.

Social security's deficit is included in the federal deficit, and makes up about 8% of it.

It is possible that it is you who is confused.
On any July 1 (beginning of fiscal year), the SS fund has a "balance" that is composed of cash and treasuries, mostly treasuries, since cash doesn't earn anything.
During the fiscal year, July 1, X through June 30, X+1, there are receipts (this will be discussed) and there are expenditures (this will be discussed). If the receipts exceed the expenditures, there will be a surplus (positive cash flow) for that FY. If the expenditures exceed the receipts, there will be a deficit (negative cash flow). The balance at June 30, X+1 will equal the July 1, X balance plus the cash flow or deficit.
I hope that this elucidates "cash (cash + treasuries) balance" and "cash flow".

The federal budget does NOT include SS. SS is a separate fund.

I am sure that you understand my explanations, but you may not believe them.
I will, sincerely, appreciate it if you would offer an explanation as to why my comments are in error. That's how we learn.

The purpose of this posting is to expose the rhetoric offered by the "talking heads" and politicians, including President Obama, intended to "tenderize" the SS payers into believing that we must address SS BECAUSE of our federal deficit.

Yes, SS must be addressed, but not because of the federal deficit.

The initial part of the SS discussion begins with becoming aware that a SS surplus or deficit is separate from the federal budget.

AGAIN: It is critical that you ask your Senators and Representative what portion of our federal deficit is due to SS.
Yes, it is a trap.

Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated and needed.
It is sad that the Little Green Football voyeurs don't get involved with this critical subject.

mz

11 MinisterO  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 4:49:16pm

re: #10 mikiesmoky2

It is possible that it is you who is confused.
On any July 1 (beginning of fiscal year), the SS fund has a "balance" that is composed of cash and treasuries, mostly treasuries, since cash doesn't earn anything.
During the fiscal year, July 1, X through June 30, X+1, there are receipts (this will be discussed) and there are expenditures (this will be discussed). If the receipts exceed the expenditures, there will be a surplus (positive cash flow) for that FY. If the expenditures exceed the receipts, there will be a deficit (negative cash flow). The balance at June 30, X+1 will equal the July 1, X balance plus the cash flow or deficit.
I hope that this elucidates "cash (cash + treasuries) balance" and "cash flow".

The federal budget does NOT include SS. SS is a separate fund.

Social Security outlays exceed revenues. That is by definition a deficit. This is included in the $1.65T federal deficit, as it must be.

The federal budget does indeed include Social Security. Whoever is telling you otherwise is not doing you any favors.

Don't take my word for any of this - read it yourself:

[Link: www.gpoaccess.gov...]

12 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 5:55:44pm

re: #11 MinisterO

Social Security outlays exceed revenues. That is by definition a deficit. This is included in the $1.65T federal deficit, as it must be.

The federal budget does indeed include Social Security. Whoever is telling you otherwise is not doing you any favors.

Don't take my word for any of this - read it yourself:

[Link: www.gpoaccess.gov...]

MinisterO, thank you for the hyperlink.
I did read it.

I do believe that you truly believed your previous explanation.

The $12.5 billion dollars included in the federal budget is for the ADMINISTRATION of the SS trust fund, as was stated: "Provides $12.5 billion for the Social Security Administration, an 8 percent increase, targeted at
reducing backlogs and improving service for the American public."

The hyperlink, which was included in the listing of federal expenditures within the link you provided:

[Link: www.gpoaccess.gov...]

Again, thank you and I hope this resolves the question.

ALL MUST CALL, E-MAIL, WRITE, TALK WITH THEIR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, asking "what portion of our deficit is attributable to SS".

Although this subject is a critical element in the understanding of our federal deficit, it is only the beginning of the complete canvas that will expose the SS problems. There are other elements that should be absolutely shocking.

Again, thank you for helping to resolve this matter.

MZ

13 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 5:59:36pm

re: #12 mikiesmoky2

Go to Line item 27:
Social Security Administration
286 K PDF

14 MinisterO  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 6:14:26pm

re: #12 mikiesmoky2

The budget includes $792 billion for Social Security. It's right there at the end. You didn't get that far, did you?

You probably don't understand this. Entitlement spending doesn't require annual Congressional approval. It's still part of the budget, still part of that $3.818 trillion in outlays.

Likewise the revenues of $2.173 trillion include the payroll taxes. The difference of $1.645 trillion is the deficit, which includes the $130 billion social security deficit. It would otherwise be a mere $1.515 trillion.

15 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 8:24:17pm

re: #14 MinisterO

The budget includes $792 billion for Social Security. It's right there at the end. You didn't get that far, did you?

You probably don't understand this. Entitlement spending doesn't require annual Congressional approval. It's still part of the budget, still part of that $3.818 trillion in outlays.

Likewise the revenues of $2.173 trillion include the payroll taxes. The difference of $1.645 trillion is the deficit, which includes the $130 billion social security deficit. It would otherwise be a mere $1.515 trillion.

Please copy and paste that to which you are referring.

I will, sincerely, appreciate your help in learning the "truth".

Thank you

mz

16 mikiesmoky2  Fri, Mar 11, 2011 10:20:18pm

re: #14 MinisterO

I found this in the .xls availability and copied onto an Excel sheet. I doesn't come out very well. LOL
But I have highlighted the 2011 amounts. The SS is OFF BUDGET.

2009 2010 2011 2012
Mandatory:
Mandatory: Social security:
Social security: Old-age and survivors insurance (OASI)(off-budget) 549,041 578,239 598,930 624,671
Old-age and survivors insurance (OASI)(off-budget) Disability insurance (DI)(off-budget) 115,604 124,255 130,531 136,896
Disability insurance (DI)(off-budget) Economic Recovery Payments, Recovery Act 13,079 300 45 -0--
Economic Recovery Payments, Recovery Act Intragovernmental transactions (Unified-budget) 2 3 4 3
Intragovernmental transactions (Unified-budget) ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Total, Social security 677,726 702,797 729,510 761,570
Total, Social security

17 MinisterO  Sat, Mar 12, 2011 10:22:06am

re: #16 mikiesmoky2

Here's the federal budget as a single document:

[Link: www.gpoaccess.gov...]

Note the title:

Budget of the U.S. Government
Fiscal Year 2011

The document is divided into sections: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Social Security Administration, etc.

At the end of each section is a line for Total Outlays. The one for Social Security is on page 141 and looks like this:

Total, Outlays............................... 716,173 770,379 791,681

The numbers are in millions of dollars, the last being for FY2011. Note also the page header:

THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

The summary on page 146 gives the BUDGET TOTALS in billions of dollars. The Outlays number for 2011 is $3,834 billion. Verify for yourself that the Total, Outlays lines from the individual sections add up to that number.

At this point it should be abundantly clear to all but the dullest dullards that Social Security is included in the federal budget.

18 mikiesmoky2  Sat, Mar 12, 2011 6:37:59pm

re: #17 MinisterO

At this point it should be abundantly clear to all but the dullest dullards that Social Security is included in the federal budget.

MinisterO, I, sincerely, appreciate your offerings enabling our dialogue and I believe that we will arrive at the correct and agreed answer.

Either one understands that the SS trust fund is separate from the federal budget or he or she does not.
Only the "administration" (approximately $12 billion) of the fund is included in the federal budget.

The SS trust fund does not have a "budget". It has an "accounting".

The "equity" of the SS trust fund grew by about $80 billion from 09/30/09 to 09/30/10 to $2.53959 trillion.

$2.586333 trillion of treasuries, yielding between 2 7/8 and 7% were on hand @ 09/30/10.

The SS trust fund financials can be viewed @ this hyperlink:
[Link: www.socialsecurity.gov...]

NOTE: My bad. The SSA fund's fiscal period ends September 30, not June 30.

mz

19 MinisterO  Sat, Mar 12, 2011 7:06:36pm

re: #18 mikiesmoky2

MinisterO, I, sincerely, appreciate your offerings enabling our dialogue and I believe that we will arrive at the correct and agreed answer.

Either one understands that the SS trust fund is separate from the federal budget or he or she does not.
Only the "administration" (approximately $12 billion) of the fund is included in the federal budget.

This is not a matter of faith. Despite your apparently unshakable belief to the contrary, the 2011 federal budget includes $791.681 billion for Social Security. It's right there on page 141 of the Budget of the U.S. Government.

Do you think the words "Budget of the U.S. Government" mean something else? Do you think Social Security is included as a joke? Do you think that the budget only includes the parts that Congress approves each year?

Regardless of what's probably semantical nonsense, the $1.65 trillion deficit is calculated by subtracting the total outlays including Social Security from the total revenues. If you don't include Social Security it's only $1.5 trillion.

20 mikiesmoky2  Sun, Mar 13, 2011 12:46:28am

re: #19 MinisterO

This is not a matter of faith. Despite your apparently unshakable belief to the contrary, the 2011 federal budget includes $791.681 billion for Social Security. It's right there on page 141 of the Budget of the U.S. Government.

Do you think the words "Budget of the U.S. Government" mean something else? Do you think Social Security is included as a joke? Do you think that the budget only includes the parts that Congress approves each year?

Regardless of what's probably semantical nonsense, the $1.65 trillion deficit is calculated by subtracting the total outlays including Social Security from the total revenues. If you don't include Social Security it's only $1.5 trillion.

Where did I imply that "faith" was required?

I understand and appreciate your "confusion".
Again, the SS trust fund is a "stand-alone" entity.
Do you understand this concept? Yes? No?

The SS "numbers" are used in the "unified budget", which is a convolution of the actual budget.
Yes, they are fully aware of what they are doing.
It is not included as a joke, it is included to enhance the budget's "curb appeal".

SS does NOT have a "budget". It has an accounting.
The expense to administer the SS fund is charged to the federal budget.

How did you calculate the $1.5 trillion, since w/o the SS numbers, it would have to be higher than the $1.65 trillion?

Here is a link that might assist your understanding:
[Link: www.ssa.gov...]

On the next post, I have included some excerpts from that link....

21 mikiesmoky2  Sun, Mar 13, 2011 1:07:36am

re: #20 mikiesmoky2


[Link: www.ssa.gov...]

Agency HistoryResearch Notes & Special Studies by the Historian's Office

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES"Off-Budget"-Trust funds are not exclusive to the Social Security program, nor were they new with its passage. At the present time, there are somewhere in excess of 150 different trust funds managed by the federal government. At the time of the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 there were already in existence two major trust funds--those involved in the Civil Service Retirement System and the Government Life Insurance Fund established to insure World War I soldiers and their families.

Trust funds have often been displayed separately in the federal budget, although their precise treatment has varied over time.

From the beginning of the Social Security program its transactions were reported by the administration as a separate function in the budget.

This is sometimes described in present usage by saying that the Social Security program was "off-budget." This was the budget representation of the Social Security program from its creation in 1935 until 1968. "On-Budget"

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a "unified budget" This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

One way to estimate the immediate impact of this accounting change is to look at the government's actual expenditures for FY 1969. Under the current unified budget rules, the government reported a surplus of $3.2 billion for FY 1969. Removing the "off-budget" items from the calculation would result in a net deficit of $507 million.Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006, Table 1.1, pg. 22.

When the Congress began its own independent budgeting activities in 1974 it adopted the existing convention of treating Social Security as part of the unified budget."Off-Budget" Again-In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993.

This was a recommendation from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka the Greenspan Commission). The Commission's report argued: "The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for purposes of balancing the budget. Those who support the removal of the operations of the trust funds from the budget believe that this policy of making changes only for programmatic reasons would be more likely to be carried out if the Social Security program were not in the unified budget." (Note that this was a majority recommendation of the Commission, not the unanimous view of all members.) This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983.

(continued)

22 mikiesmoky2  Sun, Mar 13, 2011 1:26:12am

re: #21 mikiesmoky2

The actual form of the 1983 change was somewhat complex. It provided:1) That the Social Security and Medicare trust funds (and the income and outgo to these funds) be treated as separate budget functions, starting with the 1985 fiscal year and ending with fiscal year 1992. 2) For the initial budget year after enactment (FY 1984) the Congress would be bound to use the new procedures but the executive branch would not (because the FY 1984 President's budget had already been submitted to Congress under the old rules).3) Starting with fiscal year 1993, Social Security and the Medicare Part A trust funds were not only off-budget, but were exempted from any general budget reductions that might otherwise apply to the entire federal budget (such as an across-the-board cut).

The Part B Medicare trust fund, while also to be shown as a separate budget function, was not protected from general budget limitations.Thus, in this rather complicated fashion, the Social Security program was again off-budget by FY 1985. Perhaps the more important date here, however, was the 1993 date because that date exempted the Social Security program from the potential of generalized budget-cuts.Gramm-Rudman-Hollings

The next important change in Social Security's budget treatment came in 1985 with the passage that year of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This law--informally known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, or GRH, after its three principal Senate sponsors: Senators Phil Gramm of Texas, Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina--pushed forward from 1993 to 1986 the date by which the Social Security program would be made immune from generalized budget reductions. However, GRH also mandated that the Trust Funds be included in the budget for the purpose of determining if the total budget exceeded the deficit targets in the law. This provision was to be in effect for the entire time that GRH was in effect, which turned out to be 1986-1993. The import of this provision was that when the federal budget exceeded the Gramm-Rudman targets, automatic across-the-board sequestration of spending kicked in.

So including Social Security in the triggering calculations made the sequestration less likely (since the Trust Funds were running surpluses after 1983).

So while the Social Security program was off-budget, and immune from sequestration or other generalized budget cuts, its surpluses were still being used to reduce the size of the budget deficit.So, by 1986, Social Security was technically off-budget, but it was still being used in the deficit calculations.

Absent other legislative change, this would have continued until 1993. However, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 the law was changed to stop the use of the Trust Funds for any function in the unified budget, including calculations of the deficit. One sub-part of OBRA 1990 was called the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), and it was this sub-part that specified this change in the law.The BEA budget treatment of Social Security basically remains the law to the present day.

Specifically, present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget. (The Medicare Trust Funds, by contrast, are once again part of the unified budget.)

(continued)

23 mikiesmoky2  Sun, Mar 13, 2011 1:40:53am

re: #22 mikiesmoky2

So where matters stand presently is that the transactions to the Social Security Trust Funds and the operations of the Postal Service are "off-budget" and everything else is "on-budget."

However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is.

To illustrate the difference between the "on-budget" and "off-budget" parts of the federal budget, we can observe that for fiscal year 2004 the following figures were reported by OMB: Unified Budget Without "off-budget" items
Receipts $1.8 trillion $1.3 trillion
Expenditures $2.2 trillion $1.9 trillion
Deficit $412 billion $567 billion
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006, Table 1.1, pg. 22.


Special Note About SSA's Administrative Budget:

Although the transactions of the Social Security program itself are officially "off-budget," as explained above, the administrative budget for the agency running the program (the Social Security Administration) is not. SSA's annual administrative budget is subject to the standard budget and appropriations process. Thus each year the agency must present a separate budget request for its administrative costs (called the Limitation on Administrative Expenditures, or LAE line-item) and this request is subject to all the standard review procedures of the Office of Management and Budget and the budget and appropriations committees of the Congress.


Summary- So, to sum up:1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;2- On-budget from 1969-1985;3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Special Note About SSA's Administrative Budget:
Although the transactions of the Social Security program itself are officially "off-budget," as explained above, the administrative budget for the agency running the program (the Social Security Administration) is not. SSA's annual administrative budget is subject to the standard budget and appropriations process. Thus each year the agency must present a separate budget request for its administrative costs (called the Limitation on Administrative Expenditures, or LAE line-item) and this request is subject to all the standard review procedures of the Office of Management and Budget and the budget and appropriations committees of the Congress.

24 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 10:30:26am

Since S/S has an accounting as you call it, and a projected shortfall by 2017 due to falling revenues, the above will soon become mere academic distinctions. (CBO numbers) While it may be entertaining to find where pudits are wrong, it's cheap wentertrainment, that reflects on the media pundits enjoy (cable TV) more than anything else. Perhaps we should address your question to those legislators on economic or S/S oversight committees. Why anyone on the intel or foreign relation committee would need a detailed understanding in the absence of s/s legislation is questionable.

Whether we account for this in the regular budget, or hold it separate, it's the very same Federal Government doing what it does by law. It's the very same revenue base to draw from.

Unless you expect S/S to change, s/s withholding from paychecks will have to increase. Or outlays will be cut. Means testing, changing the age, whatever may be chosen, is not yet visible in the current political landscape. Entitlements are the deficit elephant in the room in the coming years no matter how you do your accounting.

25 mikiesmoky2  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 3:11:46pm

re: #24 Rightwingconspirator

Since S/S has an accounting as you call it, and a projected shortfall by 2017 due to falling revenues, the above will soon become mere academic distinctions. (CBO numbers) While it may be entertaining to find where pudits are wrong, it's cheap wentertrainment, that reflects on the media pundits enjoy (cable TV) more than anything else. Perhaps we should address your question to those legislators on economic or S/S oversight committees. Why anyone on the intel or foreign relation committee would need a detailed understanding in the absence of s/s legislation is questionable.

Whether we account for this in the regular budget, or hold it separate, it's the very same Federal Government doing what it does by law. It's the very same revenue base to draw from.

Unless you expect S/S to change, s/s withholding from paychecks will have to increase. Or outlays will be cut. Means testing, changing the age, whatever may be chosen, is not yet visible in the current political landscape.

Entitlements are the deficit elephant in the room in the coming years no matter how you do your accounting.

In the effort to walk a path towards a destination, the first step must be taken.
This "step" of a SS discussion is proving more difficult than I had contemplated.
It appears that readers find it difficult to not convolute this "step" (question).

Having stated the obvious, yes, I do expect the logistics of SS to be altered. The final step to that destination must be taken, thus I will try to get this back on the path.

The purpose of THIS step is to remind us that SS is NOT part of the federal deficit. It is a stand-alone fund, which has never been actuarially sound for many reasons including, but not limited to improper design, greed, eligibility, uses of the funds, et cetera.

As will be shown, the SS set-up is a fraud upon the workers who pay into it.

STEPS:
1) The SS trust fund's surplus or deficit has nothing to do with the federal deficit, except for a fraudulent effort as a facade to mitigate the federal deficit. The "unified" presentation is a classic convolution.

2) What is SS?

3) Should we have a SS?

4) If we agree that there should be SS, how should it be funded?

Simple = good
Convolution = not too good

CONCEPT: If we recognize a problem, we should attempt to resolve by analyzing the problem, discussing options, and finding the stipulated best option.

mz

26 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 6:15:23pm

re: #25 mikiesmoky2

my responses in italics just for clarity.

In the effort to walk a path towards a destination, the first step must be taken.
This "step" of a SS discussion is proving more difficult than I had contemplated.
It appears that readers find it difficult to not convolute this "step" (question).

Presuming efforts to present the answer as we readers wish to is unhelpful in a number of ways. One of those is you underestimate the normal latitude the questioner should give a blogger to answer.

Having stated the obvious, yes, I do expect the logistics of SS to be altered. The final step to that destination must be taken, thus I will try to get this back on the path.

The purpose of THIS step is to remind us that SS is NOT part of the federal deficit. It is a stand-alone fund, which has never been actuarially sound for many reasons including, but not limited to improper design, greed, eligibility, uses of the funds, et cetera.

As will be shown, the SS set-up is a fraud upon the workers who pay into it.

Fraud? Really? Meh, mere hyperbole.

STEPS:
1) The SS trust fund's surplus or deficit has nothing to do with the federal deficit, except for a fraudulent effort as a facade to mitigate the federal deficit. The "unified" presentation is a classic convolution.

I find it a topic that begs that level of latitude in answers presented.

2) What is SS?

3) Should we have a SS?

4) If we agree that there should be SS, how should it be funded?

Simple = good
Convolution = not too good
Pun intended here-Oversimplified. There are possibilities of sophistication and depth that can all too easily be dismissed as convolution.

CONCEPT: If we recognize a problem, we should attempt to resolve by analyzing the problem, discussing options, and finding the stipulated best option.
Flattery of the obvious here?
mz

27 mikiesmoky2  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:43:46pm

re: #26 Rightwingconspirator

Mr. RightWingConspirator...., your four responses were non-responsive, at best, in that you did not offer anything that would benefit a discussion.

Your responses are best characterized as being dismissive.

A discussion should be an exchange of ideas. It is difficult to comprehend that you couldn't create at least one meaningful and rational comment to counter any of my comments.

Thank you,

mz


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210411The pumps are pumping along. Like they always should have.They go on when the sun comes out, they go off in the clouds and at night.We barely pay attention to their functioning and now can focus on the sight and ...
Dangerman
1 day, 21 hours ago
Views: 172 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 0 •
AFI - Dulcería (Official Music Video) "Dulcería" comes from AFI’s new album, Bodies, out June 11. Available for preorder everywhere now: riserecords.lnk.to ​ Directed by Adam Mason, produced by Elizabeth Mason LYRICSI saw sugar there, dancing in the sweet air. When my eyes began to ...
Thanos
3 days, 12 hours ago
Views: 328 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 8 •
The Shaolin Afronauts - Winds Across Gayanamede (Live at Adelaide Festival Centre) Recorded 21 January 2012 at Adelaide Festival Centre, Adelaide, Australia. Winds Across Gayanamede is taken from the second album from The Shaolin Afronauts; Quest Under Capricorn. The album drops 16 July on vinyl, CD and digital download via Freestyle ...
Thanos
3 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 277 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 4 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210404Did you spend all week thinking about solar power and pumps? We didn't either.A week of flawless electrics and hydraulics.The first few days we went out to check on it like hourly.Now we don't even think about itThe proof of ...
Dangerman
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 614 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 7
Tweets: 0 •
Springsteen - “Prove It All Night” Live at Cleveland Agora, 1978This is so perfect.
Secret ANTIFA Operative
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 784 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 3 •
Foster the People - Lamb’s Wool (Official Music Video) Official animated music video for Foster The People's single 'Lamb's Wool' off of their most recent EP 'In The Darkest Of Nights, Let The Birds Sing'. Listen to 'Lamb's Wool' here: stem.ffm.to Listen to 'Lamb's Wool (with Poolside)' here: ...
Thanos
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 713 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •
Talk Talk - It’s My Life (Live at Montreux 1986) Live at Montreux 1986 is a concert video release by the British synth pop band Talk Talk of a concert at 1986 Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland. The show was part of a tour that started in April 1986 ...
Thanos
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 778 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •
KALEO - Skinny [OFFICIAL LYRIC VIDEO] Music and Lyrics by JJ Julius SonNew song “Skinny" available now: kaleo.lnk.toFrom the upcoming album Surface Sounds out 4/23: kaleo.lnk.to What makes you feel good?What makes you angry inside? Why don’t you love me?You want to fuck me or ...
Thanos
1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 840 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •
Hania Rani - Live From Studio S2 Listen to 'Live from Studio S2': hania-rani.lnk.to The full live set video was premiered on the evening before the annual Piano Day worldwide celebrations (March 29th). The motivation to make the recording of the live performances which became the ...
Thanos
1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 833 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Billy F Gibbons - West Coast Junkie “West Coast Junkie” the new music video by Billy F Gibbons from his forthcoming album ‘Hardware’, available on June 4th on Concord Records. Pre-order ‘Hardware’: found.eeGet signed and exclusive bundles: found.ee Directed by: Harry ReeseProduced by: Matt Sorum Listen ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Views: 2,115 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 4 •