Time to toss this president under the bus?

[EatTheRich]

Obama isn't going to "cut" Social Security. He threw the idea of a revised inflation schedule on the table, as a bargaining chip. He's done this sort of thing time and again, during his tenure. And..EVERY time, some aspect of the left rends its garments around how Obama is selling them out. And every time, his theoretical "sell out", eventually vanishes.

At first, it bugged me when lefters appeared to be missing the big picture, and would get all worked up around these exercises. But..I finally figured out that their angst is an essential element! When Obama appears to be offering the GOP something by way of compromise and his lefter base throws a fit, that actually multiplies the value of his offer and makes Obama out to be that much more the statesman. All people tend to remember, is the "offer". They tend to forget that the "offer" never comes to pass.

What cases are you thinking about? When he "offered" to back down on closing Guantanamo Bay? Or when he offered to extend the Bush tax cuts for the very rich? Or when he offered to cut social spending as part of the fiscal cliff deal? Or when he offered to cut spending further as part of the sequestration deal? Or when he offered to renew the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act?

The pattern I see is, Obama offers the right a great deal ... as much as or more than Bush offered them in many cases. Conservatives in Congress come back demanding more ... and the final "compromise" ends in Obama giving them everything he'd offered and then some.

 

[justoffal]

So Bernanke is doubly the criminal

Maybe you do not understand the concept of a shortfall. The Trustees say that SS has 2.7 trillion in assets, and has embedded 23.2 trillion of unfunded promises. You look at this like it is a left pocket and right pocket where you are very rich because your left pocket has cash. The problem is that left pocket has to pay the bills in the right pocket.

That is why there is a shortfall.

FYI the 75 year shortfall is 8.6 trillion. It is a joke number because it doesn't factor in the financing costs of the system.

Once for stealing wealth from the supply by using the printing presses and twice for seeking to reduce debt payment with inflation instead of doing real things to mitigate the actual debt.

Ultimately the man hour will always tell the truth in finance or in the economy.

How many many hours does it take to put a roof over one's head today as opposed to say sixty years ago?

The peripheral reasons are irrelevant to the final effect......that effect being longer hours for the same purchasing power.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

If it wasn't for Ben Bernanke, and the policies he has pursued, we'd be in a Great Depression right now.

 

[Joe Economist]

If it wasn't for Ben Bernanke, and the policies he has pursued, we'd be in a Great Depression right now.

Let's be honest we have no idea where we would be. We might be better, and we might be worse. Most people give you two choices, (1) do nothing (2) easy money policy.

There are thousands of choices, and the people who want to prop Ben Bernanke take the convenient benchmark of doing nothing. Why because it is one of the few choices which was as stupid was what Bernanke did. By the way, which version of QE are we on now 5 or 6.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Let's be honest we have no idea where we would be. We might be better, and we might be worse. Most people give you two choices, (1) do nothing (2) easy money policy.

There are thousands of choices, and the people who want to prop Ben Bernanke take the convenient benchmark of doing nothing. Why because it is one of the few choices which was as stupid was what Bernanke did. By the way, which version of QE are we on now 5 or 6.

Recommended reading: The April 2012 cover story in The Atlantic, with a large photo of Mr. Bernanke on the cover, proclaiming him as a hero who saved the global economy. The cover caption notes that everyone, on both the left and the right, seems to hate Mr. Bernanke, nonetheless.

There is no one in the world---NO ONE---who knows more about the Great Depression of the 1930s than Ben Bernanke. It was his academic specialty, and he is a VERY good economist. [Which Alan Greenspam never was.] I also recommend you read the entire transcript of Mr. Bernanke's most recent press conference, of only a few weeks ago.

 

[middleview]

Your household will feel it because your cost of living increase will be less? Tough. While the cut isn't about reducing the national debt, we are reaching the point where there won't be a SS surplus. When that happens SS will be a hit on income tax revenues....

It isn't a cut in what you get today, but what you'll get in the future....

 

[middleview]

Obama compromised with the repubs to get an extension to unemployment....in return he agreed to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. I think he should have let the republicans twist in the wind on that, but a lot of people would have been hurt.

As near as I see, the republicans are a mob with little leadership and certainly no understanding of economic principles and no concern for those not in their base.

 

[Joe Economist]

Your household will feel it because your cost of living increase will be less? Tough. While the cut isn't about reducing the national debt, we are reaching the point where there won't be a SS surplus. When that happens SS will be a hit on income tax revenues....

It isn't a cut in what you get today, but what you'll get in the future....

Social Security hasn't had positive cashflow on an operating basis since 2009. In 2011, we had a negative cashflow which was offset by a taxpayer subsidy to the system.

'Surplus' in Social Security is not a traditional financial concept because it does not include the financing costs of the system. Today there is no surplus if you used any accounting method of the insurance industry. The 2.7 trillion is held against 23.2 trillion in unfunded promises. The 2.7 covers about 3 1/2 years of benefits. The rest of the funding is financed with promises of future benefits.

 

[Days]

Social Security is the single biggest factor to growing the economy in this system, all of that money goes directly into circulation. FICA taxes and benefit checks are roughly in a balance, Social Security benefits are not responsible for our atrocious deficits.

 

[middleview]

The deficit and debt have never been calculated or discussed in terms of the future expenses. The taxes paid into the system for the year have typically exceeded benefits. That is what I was referring to. Days is pissed because cuts in COLA will reduce his benefits next year and that won't affect the deficit....next year.

 

[Joe Economist]

The deficit and debt have never been calculated or discussed in terms of the future expenses. The taxes paid into the system for the year have typically exceeded benefits.

Try page 15 of the Trustees Report. It is the infinite shortfall. It was added because people look at Social Security in terms of cash in and cash out - which is a horribly misguided way to look at the system. It ignores the cost of taking in payroll tax revenue.

The concept is also seen quoted as the 75 year shortfall. It is worthless because it does not factor in the cost of taking in revenue. That shortfall is 8.6 trillion.

 

[middleview]

Try page 15 of the Trustees Report. It is the infinite shortfall. It was added because people look at Social Security in terms of cash in and cash out - which is a horribly misguided way to look at the system. It ignores the cost of taking in payroll tax revenue.

The concept is also seen quoted as the 75 year shortfall. It is worthless because it does not factor in the cost of taking in revenue. That shortfall is 8.6 trillion.

\

All of which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Social Security hasn't had positive cashflow on an operating basis since 2009. In 2011, we had a negative cashflow which was offset by a taxpayer subsidy to the system.

'Surplus' in Social Security is not a traditional financial concept because it does not include the financing costs of the system. Today there is no surplus if you used any accounting method of the insurance industry. The 2.7 trillion is held against 23.2 trillion in unfunded promises. The 2.7 covers about 3 1/2 years of benefits. The rest of the funding is financed with promises of future benefits.

Social Security went into negative cashflow in 2009 only because of the Great Recession. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. And as for the "unfunded promises", your figure of $23.2 trillion is what is due to beneficiaries over the next 75 years. It is absurd to suggest that we need to have all that money, right now. You seem to think the American economy is going to just DIE, and that we won't be able to collect any tax revenues over the 75 years. I don't know what to call that, other than DUMB.