11 days until your SS checks might be interrupted

So it pretty much says we need to borrow to have the funds for social security. If that’s the case then future beneficiaries are not the sole funder of SS. It’s intriguing that you use chat gpt as a source. I’m not so sure that is a proven source for political purposes so I will take that as a grain of salt. I’m curious as to where ChatGPT gets it’s sources for such debates.

 

OK well thinking the default should be tied to a possible default is not the same as social security actually being tied to a potential default. As the OP, you headed this topic to generate hysteria even though as a factual matter, social security isn't tied to a default.

I imagine the Treasury secretary could simply halt Social security checks from going out a some sort of punishment. Is that what you want to happen?

 

If you are not worried about the federal government to default, which is the attitude of many GOP-voting seniors, i.e. the base of the GOP, then why should you be protected rom the consequences of the default? if there is a default, SOMEONE will not be paid. That SOMEONE could be a government employee, for example in the FDA, making sure our drugs are safe, who has a contract with the government to be paid. They might be furloughed, but the seniors will keep receiving their SS checks. Who decides who will be punished for the default? Because some people WILL be punished. Of course, the GOP thinks that the ones who will be punished are on the GOP no-likely list, and that's why some of them are itching for a default.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that seniors should be punished for the possible default by not receiving SS checks. I also think that the US government should not default. On the other hand, many on the GOP side of voters have a different opinion...

 

I agree, but the problem is about 70% of what we spend is mandatory spending.

 

I would prefer less taxes and less support from government getting in my way.

Who's taxes should be raised? Yours?

Are you willing to buck up? And at what percentage?

 

Nope, just an example is all, clarity is king

 

Sandy Shanks said:
The President wants Congress to allow him to pay the country's current bills such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veteran's benefits, and as well as other obligations to the American people.

Republicans are not allowing this. They want to address future spending with a Republican House bill that approves the debt limit increase but guts many of the President's programs and has no chance of becoming law.

Congress has increased or suspended the debt limit unconditionally 78 times since 1960 under both Republican and Democratic administrations, three times under Trump. Without a war or a recession, $7.8 trillion was added to the National Debt during the Republican administration of Donald Trump.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************

On Thursday, McCarthy expressed optimism about ending the debt limit crisis.

Later on Thursday,"The House Freedom Caucus said it’s calling on House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to suspend his negotiation on raising the debt limit with the White House and instead focus on getting the House-passed “Limit, Save, Grow Act” through the Senate.

“There should be no further discussion until the Senate passes the legislation,” a statement from the Republican group said."

The following day, McCarthy changed his mind.

CNBC reports, "High-stakes talks over raising the debt limit paused at midday when Republican negotiators walked out of the room and blamed the White House for holding up discussions.

"As the White House presses for a debt limit hike that would push the next deadline past the 2024 presidential election, Republicans are insisting on a spending cap for next year that goes beyond a freeze on the current topline number, and actually rolls government spending back to 2022 levels."

Put another way, House Republicans are making demands that will cause our nation to default on its obligations, including obligations to the American people. The backlash against Republicans in the media was so harsh that McCarthy changed his mind again.

CNBC continued, "High-stakes talks over raising the debit limit will continue Friday evening, said House Speaker Kevin McCarthy."

The forum's Republicans know their party is doing enormous harm to the U.S. They seem proud of that fact for some reason.

 

How about we throw in Congress' paychecks, along with disability and other assorted welfare spending?

No? Why not? Shouldn't everybody feel the pinch? (Disclosure, I don't collect SS yet, not on MCare or any government programs)

 

Social Security is not an investment, so it can't be a Ponzi Scheme. What is it? A transfer payment from workers and producers to retirees.

Yes, we need more efficient production.

Yes.

We can't service our obligations at the moment, but you're suggesting a glide path to ending the cycle of building up debt.

Sure. We're wasting an opportunity to have a more prosperous future.

 

June 1st DAILY Treasury Statement will most likely acknowledge Yellen’s warnings.

Here’s an indisputable fact; We are sailing into uncharted waters.

Flashback; Mid 2000’s, a great majority believed that our financial industry was invincible.

 

Not paying our bills threatens the economy, too.

 

Is supporting someone who would otherwise be on the street getting in your way?

Yes. When there are days when I make more in the market than many workers make in a year, I should have to pay more.

 

Why not cut welfare? Biden brought in a 2 million worker illegal workforce because no one wants to work anymore. Too many milking the system with a cash side hustle.
Cut the FBI and CIA since they can save a lot by staying in their lane.
Also cut funding for the Green New Nightmare. That pure 100% pork. And cut Green subsidy farming. Let green products stand on their own merits.

 

Uncle Sam certainly needs to borrow from Public investors when SSA redeems a non-marketable special issue, and this year, SSA will diminish the AOSI Trust Fund by approx. $120 billion, mainly due to a 8.7% COLA increase.

Source;

Congressional Research Service
Social Security; The Trust Funds
Updated May 16, 2023

READ; The Social Security Trust Funds and Benefit Payments

Note; A Trust Fund “Special Issue” is just a PROMISE TO PAY!
————-

Note; If I were a fund manager, I would certainly wait for a downgrade by credit rating agencies before buying X billions of short/mid/long term treasuries.

 

Yes, yes, we all know that one of the long term goals of the GOP is to eliminate welfare, and they view this debt default as a tool to do it. You can count on ONE thing with GOP policies: They'll always target the ones that can least afford the cuts. The fat cats will be left alone.

 

No, we could raise FICA taxation levels.

The pols have turned SS into a source of benefits for more than retirees.

I read the ChatGPT explanation and it was reasonably succinct, so I used it and went on to add a bit more.

Our problem is illiquidity, not insolvency.

 

The sun will rise in the east, the RP will cave to the DP, and government spending will increase.
Budget debates are just fundraising tools for Both parties.

 

We don't need to increase the debt limit, simply call in all the markers! Start with Ukraine and then work it back 20 years and have all those we have helped stay afloat, return the favor, and make us whole again!

 

There we go! I was right on this. Social Security isn't going to stop checks unless the Treasury Secretary makes an affirmative decision to hijack FICA tax cash and reroute it to other priorities. You just want that to happen to punish your political enemies.

Such a typical leftist.

FYI I probably will have my military retirement checks stopped if there is a default since unlike Social Security, Military Retirement is funded out of general revenues. So there, that should put a smile on your face.

 

Sure, but that's not the topic of the thread is it? It's about Social Security.

 

Thanks Joe, you've had over three months to get this done but want to keep increasing the deficit and debt so much he's willing to do this.

 

The Republicans have trying as hard as they can to get the fiscal house in order it is Biden who refused to negotiate because he wants even more deficits and debt. There is bill on the table right now it could be past tomorrow and signed by nightfall.

 

There is no such thing as mandatory spending. This is a term government uses to get acceptance for spending. Congress can authorize spending in any way it wishes. Interest on the debt is around 5% of total spending. They can pay the interest without increasing the debt limit. They would have to reduce spending somewhere but that is a positive thing and not a difficult one to manage. Default is a choice. Don't let them fool you.

 

They are already paying over 80% of income taxes and are supposed to pay that "wee bit more" to bail out the student loan debt, keep Social Security afloat, keep Medicare afloat and everything. Which are willing for them not to pay?

 

And when we have to cut those in order to pay the interest on all the debt what then?