Posted on 10/04/2013 5:00:31 AM PDT by GailA
The President’s comments, underlying the danger of not authorizing an increase in government debt, highlights the structural concerns within the government’s current fiscal policy. During a campaign style speech (does he give any other kind?) the President said "In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time, [ but] if we don't raise the debt ceiling, they don't go out on time."
double speak "In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time, [ but] if we don't raise the debt ceiling, they don't go out on time."
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
He's tried this tactic before, we know it is a LIE. The only way for him to accomplish this is to furlough the people who also produce the checks for congress and hims and his clothes horse wife. HMM been no mention here lately on her newest clothing spending binges.
Yeah, and just imagine if the Fuehrer had control over peoples health care...
More of obama and his cohorts in crime making choices to intentionally make this as visible and painful as possible. In other words doing the exact opposite of what he should be doing. POS
The debt ceiling is what he’s really worried about.
Obama’s philosophy: If they be like to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.
I and many others have paid into SS all my life.
Don’t tell me I can’t have it while other programs are paid out where the recipients have never paid a cent into the system.
An old idea, lifted from Stalin. Hey, if it works....
Scaring granny and gramps has always been the dems first line of defense.
Social Security payments can be funded by redeeming bonds from the Social Security Trust Fund (current balance - roughly $4 trillion) without raising the National Debt.
Anyone who suggests otherwise deserves an appointment with a tall tree and a short rope.
Really? Tell us...who is the counterparty on the securities in that "trust fund"?
You don’t even have to do that. The incoming FICA cash stream BELONGS to SS/Medicare, not the government.
Damaged Care: Linda Peeno, American whistle-blower doctor http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/268387/Damaged-Care/overview
You know, the kenyan had best leave the old folks alone. Most of them are unbridled in their response to BS and if he takes action against them, not only will they dig in their heels and fight back, but their younger relatives will come to their side. That's why messing with the WWII Vets was a very big mistake!
The Federal government.
In order to redeem those bonds, the Feds must issue new debt (or print more money), but that’s just a transfer from one column to the other; it doesn’t raise the national debt.
When your counterparty is in the red to the tune of more than $17 trillion and unfunded future liabilities of several times that amount, you have no “trust fund” and the assets in it are fraudulent. If you want to prioritize payments out of general revenues, fine, but anyone thinking there is some kind of trust fund worth $4 trillion of investments in it probably shouldn’t be handling their own or anyone else’s affairs.
It’s true that the “Trust Fund” is an accounting fiction, but using the debt ceiling as a reason not to send-out Social Security payments is petulance typical of the guy at 1600 PA Ave; it should be a capital crime.
In predictable Democrat (read: “ruling class”) fashion, the President has threatened that a failure to reach an agreement on the Debt Ceiling would result in senior citizens being without their coveted social security checks. Of course this raises a big question: Why do we need to borrow money if Social Security is solvent?
The President’s comments, underlying the danger of not authorizing an increase in government debt, highlights the structural concerns within the government’s current fiscal policy. During a campaign style speech (does he give any other kind?) the President said "In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time, [ but] if we don't raise the debt ceiling, they don't go out on time."
There are so many aspects to this story, it almost induces a sense of intellectual drowning to any economist worth his weight in salt. The notion that the President feels he can garner support for his cause by bribing the American people with inter-generational wealth distribution is quite appalling. . . Even if it is expected. But, if it works, it is a sad narrative on the current state of the American voter.
Furthermore, it should be a self-defeating argument. Democrats have insisted, for decades, that Social Security is a solvent trust fund. According to the Democrats who refuse to acknowledge the need for substantial reforms, the trust fund allows the elderly and disadvantaged access to financial security. In response to arguments that the program is bankrupt, lawmakers like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Barack Obama, insist the trust fund is full of actual monies that are dedicated to funding the entitlement obligations outlined in the program.
So. . . Why would the debt limit impact a solvent, and funded, program?
The truth is, the Social Security trust fund is a pile of IOUs. And, as the President insinuated in his comments, it will be incapable of paying its obligations without further government borrowing from outside interests.
A trust fund, after all, cannot be solvent and in need of credit.
The President’s argument, that social security checks will stop being cut in the event that the Federal government is incapable of borrowing more funds, should be a warning sign to all citizens that our most basic entitlement programs are in dire straits. (Of course, it’s not as if we’re wasting money on keeping Andrew’s Air Force Golf Course open, or anything. Right?)
The political stunt (to quite literally scare the old people) may or may not work, as the President looks to pressure Republicans into a more amicable position. However, the slightest bit of investigative initiative on the part of the media should raise the question: How is Social Security so dependent on borrowed funds? And just as importantly: What does that mean for the future of America’s most depended-upon entitlement program?
Wouldn’t it seem mildly irresponsible to borrow money for individual retirement costs? Why then would it be appropriate for Government to do the same?
The President’s “politics of pain” strategy will, over time, wear on moderate congressional Republicans. The biggest question is whether or not fiscal conservatives in Washington DC will capitalize on the Administration’s transparently-pandering political motivations. Maybe we should migrate the funds for congressional pay into the Social Security Trust fund in the event of a government default?
I guess according to Barry if they don’t raise the debt ceiling there will be no money at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.