Tensions over ‘fiscal cliff’ hit home at Duluth protest
December 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
A vigil at the Minnesota Power plaza was an effort to get federal representatives to listen to their constituents who oppose cuts to social programs and support the extension of tax cuts for the middle class but not for top earners. Continue Reading
Projected tax receipts from raising taxes on the top 2%: $80 billion.
Projected 2013 deficit: $922 billion.
Nice math, geniuses. Perhaps less protesting and more working would close that gap.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
86 
38
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
34 
55
Vune, if you crash head on into a semi at 90 MPH instead of 100 MPH, chance are you are still dead. So much for 10 percent rhetoric.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
60 
34
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
30 
50
If you’re going 100 MPH, you have to get to 90 before you can get to zero.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
28
game…set….match ….vune wins…finish him…
Like or Dislike:
12 
15
Are you all seriously trapped in this partisan paradigm? Arguments from the left are wrong because such a tax really won’t affect the deficit much at all, and arguments from the right are wrong because the deficit has little to do with government spending on wasteful left-wing causes.
Nearly every industry in America is subsidized through the government. And every one of these industries both want and need to be subsidized for their survival. None of these corporations that many of you depend on for your retirement would continue to exist if the government balanced its books. Our economy relies on ever expanding credit. But private companies can’t take on any more debt, so the only agency left to do so is the government. There are 4 factors in the GDP: consumption, production, trade, and government spending. Gov’t spending makes up nearly 20%. So, advocating for the government to cut all spending now in order to balance the budget is advocating for an immediate 20% reduction in the GDP, which would immediately bleed into other sectors of the economy that rely on people having jobs and spending money and so forth. In short, it’s advocating for your own suicide. So when you look at countries like Japan with government debt reaching nearly 3X GDP, don’t think of that as an example of bad management – think of it as a forewarning.
So, to the right – your issues are real, but you’re only looking at one side of the problem. And, to the left – quit making weak, half thought out arguments against these guys who are determined they are correct. Study economics, study globalism, research credit and finite resources and finance. Don’t defend a band-aid, because it’s making the rest of us look bad.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
If you reduce it 10% and pretend you’ve actually fixed the problem then, no it’s not worth doing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
57 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
28
mañana
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
11
Actually, the day after mañana:
75 Percent of Obama’s Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-percent-obamas-proposed-tax-hikes-go-toward-new-spending_666067.html
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
13
The Weekly Standard is a Conservative Opinion magazine that’s as biased as the Daily Kos. What that article doesn’t tell you is that Obama’s plan also includes…
-$1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next ten years
-$250 billion worth of cuts to entitlements and mandatory spending
-Elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually
And on and on… I’m not going to list the whole thing.
So they’re telling the truth when they say that 75% of the tax increases go to new spending. Another way of saying that is that 100% of new spending is covered by tax increases. Plus another $400 billion to go towards deficit reduction (with all of those other budget cuts).
I’ve said this to you before, and I’ll probably say it again: you are actively participating in a misinformation campaign.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
22
Dave~ NO…it’s much better to pretend that a 10% improvement is nothing….
Am curious exactly how many towing this ridiculous line if offered a 10% increase for next year of their income would also say…No, don’t give it to me, why bother…10% is nothing..that won’t pay All my bills…I’m better off without it. Apparently a lot here would because that’s clearly how they think.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
23
Guy takes home $50,000/year. Guy spends $70,000/year. Guy gets a $2000/year raise.
Guy thinks, wow, now I’m rich. Guy commits to increase his spending by $1500/year.
fastone says Good Job man.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
15
According to the Republican party, the biggest mistake that guy made was accepting the $2000/year raise.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
24
Oh, I forgot to add, guy has $320,000 in credit card bills. And 25 elderly penniless relatives are moving in to live with him next year.
Hey, that new boat looks pretty good.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
23
Dave-
#1~ Don’t ever take your words of utter nonsense and then put words in my mouth that is what I said or attempt to say would EVER cosign your nonsense.
#2- Do some research before opening your mouth as to avoid always looking so foolish.
Who Dave took a 200Billion deficit surplus and turned it into a 1.2 Trillion deficit in 7 years? That would be George W.
Which party Dave over last 30 has increased spending at a rate of more then double that of other party? That would be Republicans Dave.
Obama was handed a 1.2 trillion deficit by Republicans to begin with along with a totally collapsed economy, record bankruptcies, record unemployment, record home foreclosures, unprecedented since Great Depression all our major corporations going bankrupt…and a pact by Repubs to stonewall every single thing he tried to do..and yet still he’s cut spending…in fact has cut just 200 billion out of budget this year and if Repubs would approve his budget it would be an overall then spending reduction of 20% from where the Repubs had the budget. A long way to go but the Repubs made a total mess of our budget and it will take time to fix it.
In Feb. 2010 Obama Signed legislation that stopped any and all spending increases unless it was already funded or funded by equivilant spending cuts. This to turn the tide from spend spend Republicans who for 8 years treated our budget like a credit card of a drunken sailor on weekend pass, You know how many Repubs signed that bill…ZERO…NOT ONE!
Now Repubs are arguing that increasing revenue isn’t a deficit solution. Nobody is saying it’s the only solution, Obama is cutting spending…know your facts…From Carter to Obama, Dems have always shrunk spending, shrunk the deficit and shrunk the size of Government…that they don’t is a lie. That Repubs decrease spending and shrink government is also a lie, they’ve always in same period increased spending, increased size of government and continually set new records for size of deficit. But only a fool would claim that increasing revenue doesn’t help shrink the deficit…it’s common sense…it’s simply basic math.
If you take in more money, you have more money to pay bills. This is a rudimentary concept children can grasp, yet it totally alludes Repubs.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Just because raising taxes on the top 2% will cover 10% of the deficit doesn’t mean that the deficit will be reduced 10%. Dems will find a way to spend that money elsewhere on meaningless projects and programs, and we’ll be back to where we were.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
18
you gotta second job for me that is hiring? lol and dont say mcdonalds or starbucks because according to conservatives posting on here those arent real jobs.
Like or Dislike:
9 
17
so exactly how do you propose getting the 900 billion? all from social security and medicare? lol your arguement works both ways buddy…all those cuts to programs wont put much of a dent in the deficit either so are you suggesting we shouldnt do that too since its not going to cover it all?
Like or Dislike:
10 
16
Social Security pays for itself? Really? Social Security has an unfunded long-term liability of $20.5 trillion. That would seem impressive enough until you look at Medicare. That program has an unfunded long-term liability of $42.8 trillion. Yet these people want to maintain the same level of coverage for everybody without any way to pay for it. The Million Dollar Question that they won’t answer: Where exactly do they think the money to fund these programs is going to come from?
Both programs need to be means tested. There’s no reason billionaires like Warren Buffett and George Soros need a monthly Social Security check paid for by payroll taxes on low-income workers or help getting medical care.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
65 
19
Right on the mark Dan H!
The usual “give me more” suspects wanting more freebies by your paying more taxes refuse to make the necessary cuts to balance the budget. How about spending more time working harder and smarter and less time protesting? OH NO, this is the same crowd that wants to spend a billion dollars on a train between DFL Duluth and Minneapolis.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
62 
30
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
31 
43
Their use of the word “solvent” has no relationship to its meaning in the real world.
SSI is funded on a pay as you go basis. Revenues from the special SSI tax from now on will not cover expenses. That means funds from the Treasury will have to make up the difference and that difference will grow every year from now on. Then there’s Medicare which is 10X worse.
Promises have been made that simply cannot be kept. The biggest threat to SSI is the blind stubborn refusal to face this naked fact. And not just SSI, this blindness threatens our whole civil society.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
21
“Solvent until 2038″ means anyone born in 1976 or later (36 years old today and younger) is forced to pay into the Social Security system their entire lives and receive $0, nothing in return. And you are touting that as no big deal?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
16
There is no Social Security Trust Fund. You have trusted the looters of the treasury and lost.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
8
There is no money in the SS trust fund. It has all been “borrowed” by politicians and used for pet (read pork) projects. Money paid in by workers is immediately sent back out as benefits to our retirees and our disabled. The monies paid in over the past 80 years is gone. The only thing keeping things afloat is that our current workers outnumber current beneficiaries by sufficient numbers. Once that ratio drops too low, the whole house of cards collapses. That day is coming soon, and the only way to prevent it is to start parring back on benefits and programs. Obama’s tax increases are just a cheap parlor game designed to direct attention away from his real agenda, to collapse our economy and create an entire nation wholly dependent on the gov’t for its every need.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
13
Hugh~ That Social Security money goes into general fund and is spent is just another in long list of Republican lies about Social Security. Look below to my response to Smartimus, I prove that it’s a lie.
Though I know you don’t care because you have tendency of coming in the next day and without hesitation will repeat the same things that been proven are outright lies…I just thought others should know you intentionally lie and they should know the truth…
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
REALLY!? I thought it went into a trust fund, or in Al “I created the internet” Gore’s language, a lock-box. Who knew that there isn’t any money left to pay retirees benefits? Silly me! So you openly admit that the money isn’t there. So who took it? Since Congress has been largely controlled by the democrats for most of the time this looting took place, who’s responsible?
The fact remains that SS, Medicare, the transportation trust fund, etc. are ALL BROKE! You can’t blame those evil corporations for this one, and You can only partially blame the Repubs. The rest of the blame sits squarely on democrat shoulders. The money is gone. Deal with it. And stop pandering to the havenots. It’s not humane. Raising expectations and making promises that you have no intention of keeping only exacerbates the situation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Hugh~ WOW…I point out how you always post lies even when proven are lies and you post a long list of lies. Like Dave, you tried to put a whole lot of garbage I never said in my mouth. Dave was trying to be cute at best but you are intentionally telling some real whoppers.
I never said the money isn’t there liar! I’ve in fact posted several posts in this thread with links to back it up that there is money there, that it doesn’t go to general fund, that Repubs are all lying about it being underfunded, lying about it going into a general fund and lying about it’s spent.
Yet you post that I’ve said the compete opposite…the real truth and reality is usually completely the opposite of what you post here. Are you really Mitt Rommney? Because your sociopathic behavior sure mirrors his.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
The people whining about SS cuts make me sick with their selfishness. So you paid in to the system for 40 years, huh? Well, everyone born after 1975 will be forced to pay SS tax for 40 years AND RECEIVE NOTHING! Zip, Zilch, $0. We are told we are on our own for our retirement, don’t count on anything from SS. So why do we have to pay in our entire working lives if we will receive nothing in return? Why can’t we use our own money to fund our own retirement instead of the previous, irresponsible generation’s retirements and we are left empty-handed? The SS fund is projected to run a deficit starting in 2020 and be completely dissolved by 2035, per the Congressional Budget Office – a non-partisan entity. These protesters need to wake up and realize that everyone under the age of 40 that works is being royally screwed 100 times worse than they are so you will get no sympathy from us.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
19
How about spend less, not tax more !
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
18
Don’t cut that military budget! Americans need protection!
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
35
Those of us that get up everyday and drag ourselves to work are the ones that make this country work. Most of us work for the so called “wealthy”. I am so sick of class war-fare. I am so sick of socialist hippies and there protests over god knows what. These people are children and I’m glad that bystander took time out of his day to shoot these fools down.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
27
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
17
Like our current Governor Goofball?
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
I say cut the military budget along with actual real cuts to all federal spending from Medicare on down. Everything should be on the block. Leave the money in the state and let us decide how to use it. Minnesota only gets back 50cents for every dollar it sends to the Feds in taxes. Our country has a spending problem.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
13
The rich should pay their fair share? Does someone who earns $250,000.00 per year get any more services from our government than someone who earns $35,000? I don’t think so. My buddy is a great example….whining all the time that he is tired of paying taxes to support “welfare”…but in reality, he pays nothing in either federal or state income taxes from his self employment income, but does write-off a nice truck, a portion of his home costs pertaining to an “office”, lots of entertainment costs and other “business” costs… he pays his Social Security and Medicare costs, but that’s all… what is his fair share? Nothing?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
17
who needs police and military protection more….a low income person or the person in a mansion with stuff worth stealing who is a ceo of an international conglomerate that exploits other countrys resources with the help of the militarys nation building campaigns? lol oo trust me you get your fair share in benefits. I do agree with you that you already pay your fair share however…but when the consequences are that low and middle income earners are hurt, in the interest of the country i believe higher earners should be more than willing and able to contribute. As a means test is done on SS and medicare as well and cuts and raises to retirement ages are implemented. Plain and simple that is what needs to be done. Neither side can have their cake and eat it too.
Like or Dislike:
8 
16
If the government confiscated every penny earned by every working person, rich or poor, how much do you think that would be and how long would it last at current spending levels? How long do you think programs like Medicare and Social Security, not to mention the myriad of other government welfare programs, would last? The government taking more of people’s money isn’t an answer.
Like or Dislike:
14 
9
well you say you worry about the debt when apparently thats not true you just worry about having to pay more in taxes…if you really cared about the debt you would know that more revenue is needed as well as major cuts in govt expenditures otherwise the debts interest will balloon. You can argue the whole trickle down theory as a way to increase revenues without increasing taxes but that has failed to materialize in the real world. So you can either let that debt pile up like you say you dont want to happen or you can pay higher taxes (if you make more than 250,000). If you think anything else will happen you are quite possibly delusional.
Like or Dislike:
8 
13
If you think raising taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 a year will have any impact whatsoever on the debt, the delusion is all yours. It’s incomprehensible to me that anyone believes that.
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
Raising taxes on the rich will bring in approximately $1.2 trillion. It’s incomprehensible to me that you think this will have no impact.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
Levi…..The Gov’t can raise some revenue by raising the tax rates on the upper earners…..BUT, that is only a drop in the bucket compared to what they need. They will only turn around and spend it….leaving nothing to apply towards the ANNUAL deficit….OR towards the the total debt. They SAY they will cut spending…..BUT, they will NOT COMMIT to spending reductions OR where they will apply the cuts! I would favor a small tax increase IF, they will commit to spending cuts and to where to apply the cuts…..and ONLY, if they are serious about this…..and right now, I do not believe they really know how to cut spending! They worry about offending people that get them elected….if they cut spending! The spending cuts HAVE TO HAPPEN….if we are serious about trying to climb out of this hole we have dug ourselves into. ( or should I say….the hole that we HAVE ALLOWED these politicians to dig for us…..BY RE-ELECTING THEM OVER AND OVER AGAIN ) If they do not PERFORM for the GOOD OF ALL…..boot ‘em OUT! Eventually, they will finally understand…..if you do not have the money….do not spend till you DO have the money…..or at least MOST of it! This is going to ruin our country if we do not stop this insanity …….NOW! We are spending about 220 BILLION a year …..JUST IN INTEREST on our outstanding debt…..and that does not take into consideration about all the interest all of the individual STATES debts….all of which….. WE have to pay! Will we ever learn…..????? Remains to be seen.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Vune, ” Raising taxes on the rich will bring in approximately $1.2 trillion. It’s incomprehensible to me that you think this will have no impact.” . This is 1.2 trillion over ten years, while the budget deficit for this one years is expected to be 1.6 trillion. So taxing the rich only solves about 8% of our current year deficit. How do you propose we pay for the rest? Benefits MUST be cut, and programs must be eliminated. We can’t be all things to all people. There just isn’t enough money.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
as i said before….yes raising taxes alone will do very little but i said along with cuts are the only way this debt will be addressed…..if you just cut entitlements and leave the tax base as is it will maybe pay off the interest but none of the principle, whereas with a two pronged approach you can actually take a dent out of the initial principal…but i digress i have to go work a just over poverty line job that hasnt given a raise to any employee in over 4 years. And for that i get no government handouts, just the right to complain haha ;-0
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Levi, circle this date on your calendar with the following heading, “LEVI AND HUGH AGREE ON SOMETHING!”
It’s getting really tiring of listening to the politicians make this an either/or proposition. It’s a both. But the do-nothings in DC continue to ignore the facts. Do you think that the Mayan Calendar has DC as ground zero for its predicted apocalypse? We should be so lucky.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Over the last 25 years, I’ve seen so many slugs sitting their butts on S.S.I. that it’s nauseating. By my own estimate, at least 20% of them are drawing hundreds dollars a month for ailments like ‘Anxiety Attacks’, “Chronic Fatigue”, “A Bad Back” or some other dubious ailment. In the mid-1970′s, when they made alcoholism, drug addiction and other voluntarily self induced compulsions to the list of ‘disabilities’ qualifying for S.S.I., the numbers (of course) exploded. If you are ‘impaired’, the Social Security Administration will consider you unable to work and give you money. Among the reasons they will gladly accept as your ‘disability’ are (from their own website): If you can’t deal with change; you are unable to speak well; and if you don’t get along well with others. Minor medical issues qualify for funds, too, such as ‘hormonal imbalance’, manageable ‘diabetes’ and ‘obesity’. So folks, if your fat, lazy and bitchy — your in! No wonder we’re broke…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
13
Nancy Pelosi sai, “You cannot cut your way to deficit reduction.” But Nancy, you can’t spend your way into prosperity.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
17
two words: SHARED SACRIFICE! Why should the 47%ers be immune from the pain?
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
19
oo yeah nothing sacrificed by 47% (i am not one of them btw) since the recession i forgot lol….no houses were lost….no jobs lost….no losses of health insurance plans….no pay raises in a decade….sure they can sacrifice some more why not they are still alive i guess they have room to wiggle.
Like or Dislike:
10 
11
Hugh~ How predicatable we just had this convo several days ago and what’s predicatable is despite proving that the 47% that you push as not making sacrifices or paying their fair share a total falsehood, here you are pushing the same lie regardless.
Like said this describes you to a Tee-”When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” Unknown
Of the infamous 47%…
10% are retired people that worked and paid taxes whole life but now don’t pay federal income tax but still pay property taxes, sales taxes, gas tax etc.
28% are the working poor…they can’t get good enough paying jobs to pay federal income taxes and but still contribute to payroll taxes, sales tax, property taxes, gas taxes ..
The remainder are essentially the disabled and unemployed…
So who do you think should make more sacrifices? These groups or the wealthy that have continued to increase their wealth while the average American lost over 50% of their net worth? Should we, as the Repubs are promoting, take money away from those that worked their whole lifes and paid their fair share of taxes or should we look at maybe having the millionaires that don’t pay income tax because their income is all from capital gains, or are hedge fund managers? Or the Corporations that been hauling in the dough for 10 years with lowest tax rates of their lifetimes and with half of the Fortune 500 NOT paying any taxes on their income?
Republicans want to try to take the money away from the poor and the retired while defending those that have the most and have unfair advantage and who’ve broken the intent that would create jobs with that money but instead hoarded it. Only the Republicand think there’s more money to get from old retired couples on fixed incomes…instead of looking to where the real money is…no wonder they keep screwing up our economy…they can’t grasp the most rudimentary concepts.
It’s all over this thread…conservatives trying to dismiss real money and increase in revenue…is real money and an increase in revenue…GOP might as well change name to Gouge Our Poor…there’s nothing Grand about their agenda’s.
Like or Dislike:
7 
12
“However, much of the intra-cohort redistribution in the U.S. Social Security system is
related to factors other than income. Social Security transfers income from people with low life expectancies to people with high life expectancies, from single workers and from married
couples with substantial earnings by the secondary earner to married one-earner couples, and from people who work for more than 35 years to those who concentrate their earnings in 35 or fewer years. Since high-income households tend to have higher life expectancies and receive larger spouse benefits, some of the progressivity of the basic benefit formula is offset. Understanding the redistribution that occurs through the current U.S. Social Security system is important for assessing the potential costs of moving to a mixed Social Security system incorporating both pay-as-you-go and individual-account components and for designing modifications to the traditional system that could complement other reforms.”
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/jeffreyliebman/distcurrfinalv2.pdf
Like or Dislike:
9 
16
If you want to fix these issues.
Government run SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE, like every other industrialized country. We are paying ridiculous amounts for health care, it is crippling businesses and cities. A single payer system everyone pays into, everyone gets access to.
Pay workers enough to actually save for retirement or better yet bring back PENSIONS for workers. Social Security was never meant to be peoples sole retirement income, it was meant to supplement.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
17
The problem is single payer can’t work financially in the US. In the US, population is is 310 million. The population in Sweden is a little over 9 million. Their tax rates are about 48% on income and a 25% VAT. Germany’s population is about 81 million. Their income tax rates are from 0 to 45% and a VAT of 19%.
For this to work in the US, there would have to be an income tax of like 65%, and a VAT of 35%. What annoys me, is that not a single person actually talks about the real issue: Why is health care so expensive, and why are the costs of it growing at such an exponential rate.
Like or Dislike:
19 
7
speaking of being annoying but sorry lol you brought that up what are your thoughts on why health care costs are rising so fast compared to inflation?…some of mine are needless prescription drugs, society as a whole being fatter and lazier (a culprit myself), and a for profit industry that pushes doctors to give needless tests, that pushes hospitals to shove patients out the door so they can get a new admit since that pays more., people with good insurance and good health going to the doctor too much, and people with bad or no insurance who dont see the doctor enough or quickly to offset future complications…but i digress i have to head to work. Ill sign off with this…if its good enough for congressman and soldiers its good enough for me.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
22
I agree with your George Bush quote. I repeat again fastone, there is no fund of any kind, the money goes into the general fund and is all spent. There is only a pile of IOUs sitting there blowing around in a vacuous vault, much like the liberal brain.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Smartimus~ “. I repeat again fastone, there is no fund of any kind, the money goes into the general fund and is all spent. ”
Repitition does not turn a falsehood into the truth. It’s the fatal flaw of Repubs, they’re told the same lies so often they believe them…but you are wrong..just as the Repubs are wrong about Social Security.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
“There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.”
Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the “unified budget.” This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are “on-budget.” This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken “off-budget.” This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are “on-budget” or “off-budget” is primarily a question of accounting practices–it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regarding Repubs talking point agenda’s…
“If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing” Anatole France
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Simple words are SS is fine, just the politicians do not want to pay back money stolen from system plus interest promised since removed from trust and placed in general fund.
These funds have been used to keep getting those thieves reelected through social programs and wars.
Like or Dislike:
15 
5
Bob~ though my post is before yours it was posted long after you did to another poster. That SS funds go into a general fund and is spent by politicians is just another in long list of conservative lies.
Social Security is funded until 2038 and can cover 77% of payments until the year 2082. Facts I’ve also posted here with links to support.
Dare to think…the GOP has waged a war on SS since it’s inception. In 1978 the GOP was hollering and had a fear mongering campaign not disimilar to todays, claiming SS would be broke in 20 years by 1998. The GOP isn’t saying we ditch retirement benefits, they are just claiming that it would be better if was privatized and they got their hands on that money and managed it…think about it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
so….. who in this protest orientated populace will be the happiest to step forward and accept their reduced(25%) SS check post 2038. i still think it needs fixing.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
Lets see what happens when the government defaults on their debt…..should be interesting considering that the gubmint directs Social Security to purchase and hold nearly all of its assets in Treasury bonds.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
$1.2 trillion over how many years? 15? 20?
Fiscal cliff is here. Everyone gets to feel the pain now.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Vune…..as to your post this morning…….You say raising the taxes on the rich will bring in 1.2 trillion…..I do not know where you are getting your info…..BUT, 1.2 trillion dollars in new taxes will take 15 years to raise…..as annually, the new tax on the rich would only net 80 billion a year……so, it would take 15 yrs to raise that much. And the way they spend money…..80 billion a year extra…..compared to ANNUAL deficits of over 1 trillion dollars……does nothing……as they will turn around and spend the extra taxes raised anyway! It really does not matter how much they bring in….in revenue each year……without spending cuts…..all additional money gets spent! THEY ARE NOT COMMITTED ENOUGH…..YET ( the politicians, that is ). We cannot seem to even have a balanced budget for 1 year……let alone pay off the accumulated debt …… around 16 trillion dollars……interest alone, on what we owe is 220 billion dollars each and every year that the debt stays the same….if the debt goes up…..the total intereste goes up as well! We have a very severe SPENDING PROBLEM……NOT a revenue problem here! NEVER vote for an INCUMBENT politician……till they get serious about this……vote them ALL out of office! Term limits should prevail as well. Our founding fathers NEVER intended for office holders to make it a career!
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Vern~ FACT CHECK on tax cuts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html
Bottomline…We’ve lost 1.35 trillion in last ten years due to these tax cuts. Bush promised that would create a 5 trillion surplus..LOL. ..oh, yes he did!!
We ARE decreasing spending. We need to continue to decrease spending of course, but is uninformed nonsense to claim we aren’t.. Obama has cut spending, he has capped all new spending unless funded with spending cuts. Of course not a single Republican voted for that. Obama’s curren budget would in fact reduce spending by 20% of where it was when he took office. It needs to come down more, but it was Republicans that mismanaged the economy and budget and ran it up to a 1.2 Trillion deficit NOT the Dems. It’s the Democrats who in fact since Carter have always decreased spending and deficit and Republicans who’ve ALWAYS since Reagan increased spending and grew the deficit. Get you facts straight.
It’s not even a straw man argument that is pointless to increase revenue because Congress will just spend it. That can’t even happen…again, Obama signed legislation in 2010 that there can’t be ANY new spending unless was funded by spending cuts.
Your concerns and laments that Congress will just continue to spend and the President will just squander the money is something I might agree with you on….BUT….Rommney didn’t win and the GOP didn’t gain control of the senate…so your concerns are completely unfounded.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0