*sigh* see my tagline- it covers this story
Lesee. Congress is spending every dime Social Security takes in, either on Social Security or on Federal items. There is no trust fund, no banked money, nothing but some non-binding IOUs.
The money is not there and the IOUs are worthless, but they say that Social Security is not running a deficit. Only by accounting standards.
1. is only false due to the last two years being higher. I do not count the year 1946, which, while higher, is part of WW II spending.
I don’t believe a dam word of this. As Slick Willie once said: it depends on what is is.
The libs have taken to redefine words to mean whatever they want them to mean. Often the opposite of what they originally meant. Gay “marriage”, are you kidding me?
This doesn't mean that the percentage of taxes compared to income is down.
I was thinking “Perhaps I was wrong” for about 30 seconds. Then I clicked on the writers name for a Bio. This is all that came up:
Henry Aaron is a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution.
Looks like I was not wrong. Spin anyone?
There are billions of dollars in the’trust fund’ so it doesnt add a penny to the debt, both parties agree with this,.
They only thing that confuses me is why O said not extending the debt limit would hold up SS checks.
Why doesnt he pay for it with the trust fund?
More links, ask anyone numbers can be modified.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/government-spending-as-percentage-of-gdp.html
Pure propaganda and BS.
Oversimplification to attempt to sustain a narrative by selectively utilizing statistics to support claims that are nothing but damned lies.
Here’s a more objective and complete analysis: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012
Anyone with a brain knows that you’re not necessarily wealthier if your expenses have gone up in step with your income. Why is spending the same percentage of GDP on government a virtue? Think what might have happened had the growth in government services never happened, and instead that money spent on entitlements had been returned to the people, who could have used it to create new jobs and opportunities?
The Brookings Institute is one of the birthplaces of the nanny state that have got us where we are. What would you expect them to say?
I won’t bother looking at the quiz since all that matters right now is my bottom line. It’s gone from being able to afford little extras for our families to worrying daily how to make ends meet.
I know what GDP is.
And, I also know what taxes are based on.
Why is the relationship between GDP and taxes often mentioned? We don’t tax on GDP.
Answers to those questions are not important. I have questions of my own:
1. When the government can tell you what kind of health insurance you MUST buy, it’s too big - true or false?
2. When the government can tell you what kind of light bulbs you can and can’t buy, it’s too big - true or false?
3. When there is no budget, in total contradiction to the law, and no one is held accountable for that, the government is too arrogant - true of false?
4. When the President and Attorney General choose to enforce only the laws they choose, and they are still in office, the government is out of control - true or false?
I could go on, and on, and so could every regular to this site...