Seniors may stop receiving Social Security checks if a debt deal is not reached

[QuantumPion]

You want an agreement? Obama should cut funding to the USDA and the military. You won't have food inspected and therefore not sold, but you'll have angry people with big guns without paychecks. See how long before something happens.

So according to you no food was sold in the US until the USDA was formed in 1862?

Democrats are bluffing. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL they will allow ANY government program or benefit to even temporarily subside, for everyone would realize they weren't actually dependent on those programs to begin with.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You mean wait for all the scumbags who abuse it to come out of the woodwork and complain? Interesting idea.

Hell let's not pay anyone until they come forward so we can see all the crooks who are getting money from programs from the government. I'm sure we could find a lot of interesting faces that are currently hidden.

I'm in favor of properly run programs for those who are in need and without recourse. Note the use of the word "properly run". People who bring in the H2 to the pharmacy drive up then waive the copay (that means we suck it up) and leave ought to be kicked summarily. This should not happen. Nor should people who are in need be eliminated entirely because their income goes up a few dollars a month and are so thrown to the wolves. A mandatory contribution based on income would be better.

I'm not in favor of supporting what has become in some instances (too many) a multigenerational trap. That's poor stewardship, a word some have to look up. Throwing more money at these kinds of things is precisely NOT what we need, yet that's what is happening. Status quo with a nice increase please. No thanks.

Entirely eliminating everything? No thanks again. Unfortunately it seems to be one extreme or the other.

These programs need to be examined with an eye on reasonable reform. Fat chance.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The fact is that the US is compelled to pay debt servicing obligations first anyway and since it brings in more than it pays out on those a default won't happen even if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Instead SS, medicare etc. would take the hit. Defaulting was never in play.

Nope.

How do people forget that SS (including Medicare) is financed, not out of general funds, but by payroll deductions that are earmarked for ONLY social securty?

They cannot use SS funds for anything else, and it's almost entirely self-financing.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nope.

How do people forget that SS (including Medicare) is financed, not out of general funds, but by payroll deductions that are earmaked for ONLY social securty?

They cannot use SS funds for anything else, and it's almost entirely self-financing.

Fern

Ahh, but that's the beauty of it all. The republicans for some reason decide to attack the program that people contribute to and as I said earlier about pension raiding, caused a great many to be dependent upon it for retirement. Note that what is being threatened are things which will not give Dems headaches, but Reps. This is indeed a political game. The Reps have once again shot themselves in the foot assuming that Obama would not let the nation burn to the ground before giving in. Of course he will. For their part the Reps will do the same before Bill Gates has to pay one cent more in taxes, but will slice payments to retirees.

Obama cannot lose on this.

 

[dullard]

I don't believe that's correct.

The problem is the debt ceiling. As I understand it, that limits the total aggregate amount of debt outstanding at any given time. I.e., we can't go higher than $14 trillion, meaning (old) debt can be rolled over into new debt and we'll still only be at $14T.

Fern

If you have a limit of $14T, how do you get the next loan to pay off the last loan? That is the heart of the problem. In an ideal world, the lenders would gladly let you claim you paid them off, wait for you to get a new loan, and then let you actually pay them. But, that isn't the way the world actually works.

At some point, we have to magically come up with that $117 billion to pay off a batch of loans without borrowing. Like I said at the end, after a few months of paying debt, you have that wiggle room. But it is a few months of intense problems.

 

[woolfe9999]

I know what you are saying in context, but you ought to realize that this and virtually everything else is a political game and has been for some time. It shouldn't be that way, but there is what ought to be and what is. Those in power determine "what is."

Those in power, or those pulling their $trings.

 

[Fern]

Public is overwhelmingly in favor of increasing taxes on higher brackets. The party that absolutely won't budge from their stance is the one that's going to take the heat if this falls apart.

Repubs are stuck here. Too many ran on a platform of no increase in taxes and reducing the deficit etc.

If they give in many will have to face a prelim challange and/or get voted out. Too many simply have ZERO reason to relent and Boehner's hands may be tied in that he can't raise sufficient votes for a deal with tax increases.

'Irresistable force' say Hi to 'immovable object.

Fern

 

[mcmilljb]

So according to you no food was sold in the US until the USDA was formed in 1862?

Welcome to the jungle, baby!
http://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Upton-S...0508361&sr=8-1

Go to the grocery store and buy some meat not inspected by the USDA. Would you trust it? Do you trust farmers to do testing on their crops for bacteria and fungi? Where's it going to be posted if it's bad? You going to trust the FDA to pick up the slack? They wouldn't even shut down a factory making sterile wipes that weren't sterile! Yep, you buy that product that crossed state lines...

 

[boomerang]

Kinda like the "you can't tax the rich job creators" mantra.

They can be taxed. They can tax the hell out of them. It will tally up to what's deemed a rounding error in DC these days. Many of us understand the 'mantra' of greater taxes on the rich is little more than symbolism.

Pelosi's Congress chose not to pass tax hikes, in fact they extended the Bush tax cuts. Now, with the economy in a worsened state, this is the prime time to raise taxes? Really?

The fact is, that without a change in the control of the House having occurred, Democrats would be spending every dollar they could get their hands on along with every dollar that could possibly be borrowed. The only concern for debt ceilings and our massive debt would have been heard from Republicans and those concerns would have been ignored, belittled and berated.

Cut spending massively, give the economy a chance to start recovering and then raise tax rates. It's a scenario that even Obama was for although he seems to be changing his mind enough that I have lost track of what his position is at this particular hour of this particular day.

Make a business case for raising taxes on the 'rich'. First define the rich, then tell us how much of their money you want to confiscate and tell us what will be done with it. Dem's are all for spending cuts as long as those cuts are offset by tax hikes. Many of us realize this is little more than the status quo.

I'm not against tax hikes for the rich and a search here will prove that out. So another argument will need to be used against me.

 

[Fern]

If you have a limit of $14T, how do you get the next loan to pay off the last loan? That is the heart of the problem. In an ideal world, the lenders would gladly let you claim you paid them off, wait for you to get a new loan, and then let you actually pay them. But, that isn't the way the world actually works.

At some point, we have to magically come up with that $117 billion to pay off a batch of loans without borrowing. Like I said at the end, after a few months, you have that wiggle room. But it is a few months of intense problems.

I don't see the problem, or how you have a problem understanding this concept of rolling over debt.

New lender 'B' transfers money to old lender 'A' and old note 'A' is terminated/deemed paid off and new note 'B' is created.

Or think of it like refinancing a mortgage (assuming you've done that). Your debt never doubles, nor is it ever eliminated, nor do you personally ever come up with your own money to pay off anybody.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Go to the grocery store and buy some meat not inspected by the USDA. Would you trust it? Do you trust farmers to do testing on their crops for bacteria and fungi? Where's it going to be posted if it's bad? You going to trust the FDA to pick up the slack? They wouldn't even shut down a factory making sterile wipes that weren't sterile! Yep, you buy that product that crossed state lines...

Are you from South Carolina?

If so, I would certainly expect you to be aware that all kinds of stuff can, and are bought directly from farmers down here. So yeah, plenty of people trust them.

Same with meat.

If there were no FDA and I was afraid of grocery stores that's where I'd buy my stuff from - directly from the farmers/ranchers.

Fern

 

[mcmilljb]

I'm in favor of properly run programs for those who are in need and without recourse. Note the use of the word "properly run". People who bring in the H2 to the pharmacy drive up then waive the copay (that means we suck it up) and leave ought to be kicked summarily. This should not happen. Nor should people who are in need be eliminated entirely because their income goes up a few dollars a month and are so thrown to the wolves. A mandatory contribution based on income would be better.

I'm not in favor of supporting what has become in some instances (too many) a multigenerational trap. That's poor stewardship, a word some have to look up. Throwing more money at these kinds of things is precisely NOT what we need, yet that's what is happening. Status quo with a nice increase please. No thanks.

Entirely eliminating everything? No thanks again. Unfortunately it seems to be one extreme or the other.

These programs need to be examined with an eye on reasonable reform. Fat chance.

I meant more of the people who abuse the system by using homeless people, fake clinics, and the like. The people receiving the aid like you're thinking are a drop in the bucket compared to the fraud and abuse by people who receive the money for "services." A doctor over and needlessly billing can cost way more than some baby momma's free pills.

 

[JSt0rm]

They can be taxed. They can tax the hell out of them. It will tally up to what's deemed a rounding error in DC these days. Many of us understand the 'mantra' of greater taxes on the rich is little more than symbolism.

Oh so we are all in agreement that tax cuts do nothing for hiring? Thats good at least. People pay taxes on profits. People hire and pay people before they pay those taxes. By raising taxes you will probably get more people hired because there is less incentive to have money over at the end of the year. You know the opposite of what the republicans have been saying for the last 30 years.

 

[boomerang]

I don't see the problem, or how you have a problem understanding this concept of rolling over debt.

New lender 'B' transfers money to old lender 'A' and old note 'A' is terminated/deemed paid off and new note 'B' is created.

Or think of it like refinancing a mortgage (assuming you've done that). Your debt never doubles, nor is it ever eliminated, nor do you personally ever come up with your own money to pay off anybody.

Fern

The problem will arise if and when no lender 'B' can be found. Whether that problem will ever occur is subject to discussion. I'm not sure we can predict the future in this regard. We're a lot bigger than Greece. In other words, it's gonna take a whole lot more dough to keep us afloat than Greece or Portugal.

 

[boomerang]

Oh so we are all in agreement that tax cuts do nothing for hiring? Thats good at least. People pay taxes on profits. People hire and pay people before they pay those taxes. By raising taxes you will probably get more people hired because there is less incentive to have money over at the end of the year. You know the opposite of what the republicans have been saying for the last 30 years.

You're smarter than this.

 

[JSt0rm]

The problem will arise if and when no lender 'B' can be found. Whether that problem will ever occur is subject to discussion. I'm not sure we can predict the future in this regard. We're a lot bigger than Greece. In other words, it's gonna take a whole lot more dough to keep us afloat than Greece or Portugal.

I'm young. I'm not a babyboomer. I say we inflate the debt away. I dont give a fuck I can make more money. Its not my problem. The babyboomers own a huge portion of this debt and they should feel it before they die.

 

[JSt0rm]

You're smarter than this.

I'm over generalizing but the logic is correct. I do it myself. I purchase things because I know that I can write them off.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Those in power, or those pulling their $trings.

Remember that people will certainly feather their nests or war chests in this case, however the majority in Congress are already wealthy. They don't need to become rich because they already are. Of course that doesn't mean they won't pay back favors owed nor that they are suddenly free from financial temptation. I believe it was the eldest Rockefeller who was asked "how much is enough". His reply is "just a little more". Whether that is true or a myth, it is applicable to human nature. Don't forget though that the real drug throughout history has been the ability to control the fate of others. The desire for power goes far beyond pedestrian greed. The ability to say to another "die" and he dies is what makes some people seek great power. I'm not saying that people in DC have a secret wish to be Thulsa Doom, but to be able to make things happen is a narcotic, and that's hard to deny.

The combination of ego and greed is a source of many evils, and when those who ought to be the servants think of themselves as the masters and naturally entitled to their status then we have what we see today.

Sorry, I know I come across as extremely cynical, but while there are exceptions the general rule seems to apply all too often.

It's interesting because there used to be a concept (almost always imperfectly practiced) of the servant-leader. People who meet this description would be appalled by what we see now. We've even dropped the pretense. We would see pushing the envelope, but now we see a willingness, no an eagerness, for confrontation at any or all costs. While that's bad you can see even worse, where partisans would gladly see Rome burn if their side can gain the upper hand.

For that reason I've come to the same conclusion as that of George Washington and that is if the nation falls the root cause will be parties in power. Whatever the reason or consequences they seek confrontation and control does not matter. They must have it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ahh, but that's the beauty of it all. The republicans for some reason decide to attack the program that people contribute to and as I said earlier about pension raiding, caused a great many to be dependent upon it for retirement. Note that what is being threatened are things which will not give Dems headaches, but Reps. This is indeed a political game. The Reps have once again shot themselves in the foot assuming that Obama would not let the nation burn to the ground before giving in. Of course he will. For their part the Reps will do the same before Bill Gates has to pay one cent more in taxes, but will slice payments to retirees.

Obama cannot lose on this.

I think you are wrong on that.

Obama will have X dollars to spend and it will be his choice what does and doesn't get paid.

The Republicans already have their strategy worked out. Track every penny that Obama spends and make sure the public knows about it.

If he doesn't send out SS checks but spends money on something else the public will know about it. And if that money goes to unions or corporations the shit will hit the fan.

In the end it will Obama's choice not to send out the checks. He can blame Republicans all day, but they can just point out that he had enough money to send them out and chose to spend the money on something else.

 

[OCGuy]

Uh oh, this isn't good news for the Indian casinos near me. I swear the old people sit at the ATM machine, just waiting for that SS direct deposit to hit.

 

[mcmilljb]

Are you from South Carolina?

If so, I would certainly expect you to be aware that all kinds of stuff can, and are bought directly from farmers down here. So yeah, plenty of people trust them.

Same with meat.

If there were no FDA and I was afraid of grocery stores that's where I'd buy my stuff from - directly from the farmers/ranchers.

Fern

That's nice, but there would be an explosion of people needing to buy directly from a reputable farmer. The country's food production is not evenly distributed across the country. There would be a bit of a crunch on certain products in certain areas. Also what country do you think is going to buy our food if it's not inspected by the USDA before being exported? Also people get food subsidies through the USDA. Who's going to feed them? No more crop insurance either. No more administering US Forest Service. You can read everything you lose here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usda

It's not like farmers want their federal subsidies either.

 

[woolfe9999]

Remember that people will certainly feather their nests or war chests in this case, however the majority in Congress are already wealthy. They don't need to become rich because they already are. Of course that doesn't mean they won't pay back favors owed nor that they are suddenly free from financial temptation. I believe it was the eldest Rockefeller who was asked "how much is enough". His reply is "just a little more". Whether that is true or a myth, it is applicable to human nature. Don't forget though that the real drug throughout history has been the ability to control the fate of others. The desire for power goes far beyond pedestrian greed. The ability to say to another "die" and he dies is what makes some people seek great power. I'm not saying that people in DC have a secret wish to be Thulsa Doom, but to be able to make things happen is a narcotic, and that's hard to deny.

The combination of ego and greed is a source of many evils, and when those who ought to be the servants think of themselves as the masters and naturally entitled to their status then we have what we see today.

Sorry, I know I come across as extremely cynical, but while there are exceptions the general rule seems to apply all too often.

It's interesting because there used to be a concept (almost always imperfectly practiced) of the servant-leader. People who meet this description would be appalled by what we see now. We've even dropped the pretense. We would see pushing the envelope, but now we see a willingness, no an eagerness, for confrontation at any or all costs. While that's bad you can see even worse, where partisans would gladly see Rome burn if their side can gain the upper hand.

For that reason I've come to the same conclusion as that of George Washington and that is if the nation falls the root cause will be parties in power. Whatever the reason or consequences they seek confrontation and control does not matter. They must have it.

I wasn't referring to their desire to become richer. I was referring to their desire to be re-elected. Few elected officials have sufficient personal wealth to be re-elected on their own dime.

As to the rest of your comment, I don't think the problem is that government is too "authoritarian" or however you want to put it. I think our elected officials are becoming increasingly ineffective in how they do their jobs, if "effective" is defined as serving the public interest. But that isn't because we have a problem with the "master/servant" dynamic between us and government. It's because our elected officials ARE us. Our root problem is cultural. That is where the rot is. The problems you describe with elected officials do not arise in a vacuum. Putting this down to "government is a problem" or "politicians' are a problem" is ascribing our problems to some vaguely external entity over which we allegedly have no control. It's no different than being at war with the evil communists or the evil muslims. Now we are at war with the evil government.

The truth is, we wouldn't know good government policy from bad government policy, good elected officials from bad, if it crawled up and bit us on the ass. Politics is a football game to the average American, a spectator sport. We are a nation of shallow, materialistic, lazy, self-centered morons. And we get exactly the kind of government we deserve. In the future, if that means no government, which is more or less the same as ineffective government, then that too is what we deserve.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A doctor over and needlessly billing can cost way more than some baby momma's free pills.

Anyone who commits fraud should be punished. The caveat would be "what is fraud". In NY the government decided to hire temps to go over records and prescriptions and look for any variance from regulation no matter how obscure. In the case of conflicting regulations the examiners were instructed to fine based on the violation even if other regs required it. It happened. There are even fines for non-violations. Pay up. Now I don't mean false or inflated billing, I mean if the time a call was taken wasn't recorded, that sort of thing. Basically it was a financial shakedown with a political benefit.

In any case payments are capped. I could bill a billion for 30 penicillin tabs. I'd get about 30 cents net, and that's a good thing. No not the payment itself but that there are mechanisms to limit automatic payment.

The problem is that there is a huge cumulative waste associated with the system. It's a simple matter for a medicaid patient to get hundreds or thousands of dollars of name brand medication where the generic would cost a tiny fraction. This isn't an option with most private insurances. You take the generic or pay. Sure there is a procedure, but only one out of a great many are every turned down. In fact Medicaid insists that a brand name be dispensed in some cases for no good reason.

NY is especially a cluster so perhaps that's why it's so vexing. "Momma's pills" cumulatively cost $55 billion a year. We're illegally raiding funds dedicated for education for it. Try to reform it at all? "Ain't happening" is the reply.

That's part of the tragedy of the American political system. Everything is political.

 

[Fern]

Ahh, but that's the beauty of it all. The republicans for some reason decide to attack the program that people contribute to and as I said earlier about pension raiding, caused a great many to be dependent upon it for retirement. Note that what is being threatened are things which will not give Dems headaches, but Reps. This is indeed a political game. The Reps have once again shot themselves in the foot assuming that Obama would not let the nation burn to the ground before giving in. Of course he will. For their part the Reps will do the same before Bill Gates has to pay one cent more in taxes, but will slice payments to retirees.

Obama cannot lose on this.

I think you are wrong on that.

Obama will have X dollars to spend and it will be his choice what does and doesn't get paid.

The Republicans already have their strategy worked out. Track every penny that Obama spends and make sure the public knows about it.

If he doesn't send out SS checks but spends money on something else the public will know about it. And if that money goes to unions or corporations the shit will hit the fan.

In the end it will Obama's choice not to send out the checks. He can blame Republicans all day, but they can just point out that he had enough money to send them out and chose to spend the money on something else.

I also don't see how this a slam dunk win for Obama.

I just don't see what SS has do with this whole "debt ceiling" thing, other than lying and fear-mongering for political points.

Eventually the knowledge that SS receipts can only be spent on SS benefits is going to get out. As I've demonstrated above 93% of what is needed will be paid in by SS w/h on wages.

SS funds are segregated from general funds (income taxes etc).

Obama is a fvcking liar when he says SS funds will be spent on other stuff, and when he says we won't have the money to pay SS benefits if we can't raise the debt ceiling.

Surely somebody in the MSM has the few brains cells it takes to realize the SS fund has a HUGE effin surplus and doesn't need any debt to make any payments.

Somebody has to have the balls to call Obama out on this blantant lie. He should be made to look like the inexperienced and financially clueless community organizer he is.

Fern

 

[DucatiMonster696]

http://today.yougov.com/news/2011/07/08/77-agree-defaulting-debt-would-be-serious-economy-/
Why we're here. And why Republicans can't govern.

Ah the old "getting things done" for the sake of "doing things" argument. Kind of like digging a ditch for yourself and putting a financial gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Yeah that's getting things done alright.