11 days until your SS checks might be interrupted

Exactly. The left is brewing up scare stories and lies for political gains. Last fiscal year's revenue was $4.8 billion. We're not going broke; we're just not managing our funds intelligently.

 

WWII was caused by an unjust punishment levied on Germany and Japanese resource needs, the US didn't have any affect the US barely fought in WWI as it was. We only became a world player after WWII because of nukes and that Europe had been completely destroyed by the war. There would be no WWIII if the US reduced our military Europe would just finally have a European military instead.

 

Interesting. We see in this thread that Republicans believe that they can force the government into default by not raising the debt ceiling, but that their SS checks will keep coming. That's exactly the problem when one side thinks that defaulting is not a big deal, because it's someone else who will pay the price, but their own government cheese will not be interrupted. Actually, they not only see defaulting as not a big deal, they are actually rooting for it, because they think default will force the government to cut spending. This is truly un-American.

 

So you think Social Security funds are tied to a potential default?

 

39 years ago……

May 24, 1984


Headline; Regan asks Congress to raise the debt limit

Treasury Secretary Donald T. Reagan warned congressional leaders yesterday that the government may not be able to make good on Social Security Checks it will mail later this week, and other federal payments next month unless Congress raises the debt ceiling limit.

________

“DIRE CONSEQUENCES” if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit.

 

So what? The deficit was $185 billion. See the difference?

 

I see NO difference due to the fact that historically, both Red and Blue Treasury Secretaries have used the term DIRE CONSEQUENCES if Congress refuses the raise the debt limit.

 

Fine, you're entitled to an opinion.

 

I think that SS payments SHOULD be tied to a potential default. A default means that the government cannot pay its obligations. Why should retirees be exempt from the consequences of this default?

Unfortunately, the 2013 debt ceiling crisis, which led to a partial government shutdown, has shown two things:
1) SS checks kept coming, resulting in many GOP voters happily claiming that the government shut down and nobody noticed, meaning that, in their view, it was good that government shut down. Of course, they weren't the ones who were furloughed without paycheck because the GOP forced the government to not be able to pay bills.
2) The GOP does not negotiate these issues in good faith. For example, they attached the Keystone XL pipeline, one of the pet projects, to the bill to raise the debt ceiling. Also, only three years later, all concern about the deficit was forgotten, and the GOP cut taxes and exploded the deficit like no tomorrow. Therefore, this has NOTHING to do with concern about the deficit, but EVERYTHING with regaining power.

My take on the current debate: The GOP will try the same spiel again: Force spending cuts and a down rating of the US by credit agencies, hurting the Biden economy. Take back the WH and Senate in 2024, and then push through another tax cut, again exploding the deficit. I know it is cynical, but one has to look at history for precedent.

 

We are actually going broke. It is easy to fix with significantly lower federal spending. If it doesn't get fixed the government will go broke.

 

Default is a choice. Government can pay its obligations at least for now. It just has to spend less to stop the borrowing in order to put things on a proper track. There is actually not need for a rise in the debt ceiling. I'm upset the republicans passed a bill raising it.

Shame on you again. Social security (theoretically) is paid from "contributions" made over the working life of recipients. They are not keyed to work. Not true of federal employee paychecks. Layoffs result in lost wage and salary in the private sector. Not in federal government.

Yes. Politics is all about power and control. It has always been so and I think the Democrats have done that better than republicans for a long long time. Cutting taxes does not cause a deficit. Deficits are caused by spending. If you limit spending to available funds, there is no deficit.

One can only hope.

 

Conversely, the Democrats make unfunded spending obligations, wait until someone notices that the imaginary money ran out, and then blame Republicans for refusing to pretend with them.

I agree with you. SS is government Ponzi cheese. It's becoming more and more worthless because each elevation of the debt destroys the value of the cheese. We're not making value when we print dollars. We're destroying it.

If we want to get rid of this fiscal problem the ONLY thing we can do to solve it is produce more value. We can't keep dumping our value into the service of greater and greater interest obligations. We have to use that value to produce more of it. We can service our current obligations without raising the ceiling. We have to produce value to do it.

This means energy production. This means natural resource extraction. This means manufacturing & technology development.

The problem cannot be solved by producing more dollars. It only pushes the problem into the future. It's a band-aid for a gaping arterial bleed.

 

Shame on you! See, I can play that game too.

Voters like you are the cause of part of the problem. They vote for tax cuts without spending cuts, thinking that they magically pay for themselves. It's no wonder that the debt problem is getting worse and worse when voters like you enable politicians to be fiscally irresponsible. Now, blame it on the other side, that's the easy way out, but not a solution. I have shown the math before that balancing the budget would cause an instant recession, which is why no politician, left or right, would do it. You dismissed it out of hand claiming the numbers were based on a lie. I used to think that you were a poster who could be debated with in good faith. However, I might have to revise this opinion.

 

Sorry, I am not a voter. I'm not debating either. I am pointing out problems with what you wrote. Your ideas are good for future democrat votes but not for the public or the nation in general. That is opinion. It differs from yours.

Finally, I said "shame on you" for posting misinformation. I didn't do that so the turnaround is not fair.

 

Well said. Sadly it applies to republicans as well.

I see MMT aficionados explaining about the money printing as unimportant because the wage/price spiral levels things. Not only does it not level things but it doesn't apply at all to retired people.

[quot]If we want to get rid of this fiscal problem the ONLY thing we can do to solve it is produce more value. We can't keep dumping our value into the service of greater and greater interest obligations. We have to use that value to produce more of it. We can service our current obligations without raising the ceiling. We have to produce value to do it.[/quote]

This is confusing to me. I view government action as necessary to a degree, not valuable. In fact it is very expensive. Whose value is going to reduce the size of government? That is up to voters and voters don't want a smaller government. Sad but true.

 

When I say value what I'm talking about is the things the dollars are being traded for. The government does create value, but one of the issues with government spending is that the people who produce the value that back the dollars for government to spend, the people who spend the dollars and the people the receive the value are three different groups. When you destroy the first group, and the other two continue on as if nothing happened you're headed for a collapse.

 

Whatever that meant ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Fear mongering and propaganda no longer teaches any American life lessons! At some point you must teach people the value of the dollar and those that provide these funds..

 

ChatGPT has a pretty good answer:

"If the United States doesn't raise the debt ceiling, it could potentially lead to a government shutdown or a situation where the government is unable to meet all its financial obligations. While Social Security is a mandatory spending program and its funds are separate from the general operating budget, the government still needs to have enough cash flow to make Social Security payments.

The Social Security Administration relies on its trust funds, which hold the surplus revenue collected from payroll taxes, to make benefit payments. However, if the government reaches the debt ceiling and is unable to borrow more money, it may face a cash shortfall. In such a scenario, the government would need to prioritize its spending, and there is a risk that it may not have sufficient funds to cover all the Social Security payments.

In previous instances where the government faced potential default due to hitting the debt ceiling, there were discussions about which payments would be prioritized. Social Security payments are generally considered a high priority, as they provide essential support for retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors. However, in the event of a severe cash crunch, there is still a possibility that there could be delays or disruptions in Social Security payments, albeit it is not guaranteed.

It's important to note that the exact consequences of not raising the debt ceiling can vary depending on the decisions and actions taken by the government at that time. These situations are complex and can have wide-ranging implications for various government programs and financial markets."​

The upshot of all this is that the President decides who gets the cash the government has available to it.

Are Social Security payments more important than spending for money owed to creditors (bonds), national defense, policing, public health, Medicare, Medicaid, firefighting--you name it. Not paying bondholders would damage faith in U.S. government bonds and force us to pay higher interest rates to attract money? How much higher is anyone's guess.

If I had to choose between SS payments and paying debt, I would reduce SS payments, especially to high income recipients. However, if I was the President, I would continue payments to everyone and declare my belief the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. I don't believe any President since Roosevelt when the debt ceiling was created would have stop paying our obligations.

 

That you don't appear ti understand is no surprise.

 

See my point

 

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are essential for many people. You're messing with folks at a real basic level if you disrupt what they feel they earned (Social Security, Medicare) and what they need or deserve (Medicaid).

I wouldn't give two cents for any pol's future who went along with your idea.

 

You're going to play "typo"?

 

Regardless of party, seniors paid into the system for many years. Politicians are spending like thieves with stolen credit cards and now they want us to blame the other party.

Thieves often use scare tactics.

 

So what you're telling me is that everyone who is on the other side of the debt limit debate threatens social security, even though the funding doesn't come from the federal budget.