NOW ON THE TABLE: not fully repaying the Chinese and other Treasury Bond holders

Nah, it's not true. It would be unthinkable.

SO WHY THE FUCK IS IT OK TO NOT REPAY THE MONEY BORROWED FROM SOCIAL SECURITY?

Why are working Americans a creditor to be scalped with impunity, while other bond holders are v-e-r-y important and must be paid at all costs?

Fuck.

let's hope that the repugs finally decide to change course after this.

Most Americans believe that the Social Security trust fund contains a pot of money that is sitting somewhere earning interest to pay their benefits when they retire. On paper this is true; somewhere in a Treasury Department ledger there are $2.4 trillion worth of assets labeled "Social Security trust fund."

The problem is that by law 100% of these "assets" are invested in Treasury securities. Therefore, the trust fund does not have any actual resources with which to pay Social Security benefits. It's as if you wrote an IOU to yourself; no matter how large the IOU is it doesn't increase your net worth.

This fact is documented in the budget, which says on page 345: "The existence of large trust fund balances … does not, by itself, increase the government's ability to pay benefits. Put differently, these trust fund balances are assets of the program agencies and corresponding liabilities of the Treasury, netting to zero for the government as a whole."

Consequently, whether there is $2.4 trillion in the Social Security trust fund or $240 trillion has no bearing on the federal government's ability to pay benefits that have been promised. In a very technical sense, it would lose the ability to pay benefits in excess of current tax revenues once the trust fund is exhausted. But long before that date Congress would simply change the law to explicitly allow general revenues to be used to pay Social Security benefits, something it could easily do in a day.

The trust fund is better thought of as budget authority giving the federal government legal permission to use general revenues to pay Social Security benefits when current Social Security taxes are insufficient to pay current benefits--something that will happen in 2016. Effectively, general revenues will finance Social Security when the trust fund redeems its Treasury bonds for cash to pay benefits.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/taxes-social-security-opinions-columnists-medicare.html

I understand what you're saying (at least I'm pretty sure I do), but everyone acknowledges that the Trust Fund exists - the very rationale for slashing benefits is that the Trust Fund will run out of money in 26 years, no?

Unless it is allocated by the legislation which is what the payroll tax thing Obama did was about. If they got rid of that law then the point of the trust fund is moot.

That is the point these paragraphs are making.

Nor do they need to. http://www.handsoffss.org/will-social-security-go-bankrupt-in-the-future.html">Social Security is fine.

A special law can be passed allowing a one-time payment into Social Security to make up for Obama's payroll tax holiday. But more likely, Obama created the holiday because he knew he was gonna slash the crap out of benefits and it would never need to be repaid - after all, his commission recommended a 22% cut for the average beneficiary. That frees up many trillions.

"Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent."

How do changes in the level of taxation affect the level of economic activity? The simple correlation between taxation and economic activity shows that, on average, when economic activity rises more rapidly, tax revenues also are rising more rapidly. But this correlation almost surely does not reflect a positive effect of tax increases on output. Rather, under our tax system, any positive shock to output raises tax revenues by increasing income.

In The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks (NBER Working Paper No. 13264), authors Christina Romer and David Romer observe that this difficulty is just one manifestation of a more general problem. Changes in taxes occur for many reasons. And, because the factors that give rise to tax changes often are correlated with other developments in the economy, disentangling the effects of the tax changes from the effects of these underlying factors is inherently difficult.


http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

I don't have the data handy, but it does clearly show that US GDP growth was higher when taxes were higher. That doesn't prove that higher taxes cause higher GDP growth, but it sure makes the converse (higher taxes stunt GDP growth) highly unlikely.

If you don't believe that based on your own knowledge of previous taxation and economic growth, let me know and I'll try to dig it up.

This is a nice piece from Jeremy Grantham...


http://wallstreetexaminer.com/2011/05/19/jeremy-grantham-in-the-face-of-finite-resources-its-time-to-think-about-peak-everything/


The slowing growth in working age population has reduced the GDP growth for all developed countries. Adding resource limitations is further reducing it. If U.S. GDP grew 2% for the next 20 years, I think we would be doing very well. Dropping to 1.5% would not surprise me, nor would it be a disaster. In the past 28 years, we have increased our GDP by 3.0% per year, with only a 0.9% increase in energy required.

what was actually experienced. So they have a long track record of being wrong. Looking at previous history, on the other hand, has a long track record of being right.

There are no guarantees - but since even if things do go bad this is a relatively small problem to fix, and we have 26 years to fix it, it seems like pretending that there's an enormous crisis that needs to be fixed right now is just mischief.

trickle down economics? Strange thing to read on DU, very strange.

But when you look at how screwed up things are, you gotta look at what makes sense going forward.

you were repeating, like: "It's all IOUs" & "SS bonds are non-negotiable!"

Then you could fund the August payment.

I do wonder why they did that. Very curious.

The US government doesn't need to sell bonds to have money to pay Social Security benefits. Take a class.

At least it would be an option. So why do you think they issued these odd non negotiable bonds?

Review the history of the program.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html

That's a link to the SS page that explains it.

In the past (remote now) the SS trust fund actually DID buy regular Treasuries, and if it had continued to do so, getting money from those securities would not be a problem because it would not cause us to have to go out and raise a bunch more money. Setting aside Medicare, before 2025 we are going to have to put an additional 2.6 some trillion more US treasury debt on the market. We already have 9.3 trillion out. Then add Medicare.

There is a huge difference between the two strategies. Buying marketed Treasuries forces an honest accounting of the deficit ex Medicare and Social Security taxes, and then when we need to draw on those funds, we don't have to go out and create a bunch more debt. Nor does the amount of interest we are paying on treasuries jack up inexorably, year after year.

Since we are slated to run more than .8 trillion dollar deficits for the next ten years, it's obvious that we can't do it. You can talk all you want, but we'd wind up like Greece. Here's GAO on the subject:
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/fed/


Here's another GAO link explaining the difference between total debt and debt held by the public:
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/debtbasics.html


The bottom line is that we can't afford to borrow the money on the open market!

I definitely would not assert that tax cuts are the end all and be all to keeping an economy strong. But I do think if we raise taxes as a percent of GDP we need to be prepared for it's effects.

I was responding to Manny's more optimistic view of GDP and thinking that since we do need to raise taxes we need to expect lower GDP than historical.

And I am all for rescinding every single penny of the Bush tax cuts. So it's definitely not a defense of Bush or Reagan.

You are right, there is no money in a bank. What money was paid in was borrowed by the general fund and spent. It is a debt of the general fund owed to SS.

For now, there is enough SS income to cover the SS payments.

Soon SS fund will not have enough income to cover all the SS payments.

At that point the money to cover SS checks will have to come from the general fund.

And, at the same time, the general fund will no longer be able to borrow any more from SS and will have to borrow from somewhere else.

Of course, the kicker is that the general fund is already in a deficit. Now the yearly debt owed SS and other bond holders adds to that deficit every year.

And it always will unless: They raise money by more taxes.

Actually, that probably won't happen: http://www.handsoffss.org/will-social-security-go-bankrupt-in-the-future.html

Social Security holds 2.6 trillion in Treasury bonds, backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States government"

Those bonds must be repaid. They are specifically designed to pay the difference in income and outcome as the Baby Boomers retire.

And they will be paid back by the general fund.

Say SS called for payment tomorrow....not that SS could, but if they did...

The feds would have to sell bonds to raise the cash to pay back SS.
Because the fed is in debt already and has no reserve to speak of.

Or anyone else?

SS will be paid.

The question is how much, and how fast, and how much interest will be charged.

No denying: To pay the SS bills, and the Chinese, money has to be raised somehow.

and should be cut.

My bad.

:toast:

When we pay off the Chinese, we replace debt with more debt if we floated a bond. When we pay SS, we float debt to pay debt but we also remove it as an asset so that reduces net worth.

Why take it out of the hide of Social Security recipients?

The problem is we are going to have to borrow money to pay ourselves back.

As the situation now stands, that scenario - borrowing to pay back - is the crux of the problem.

The crooked politicians want to lessen the payback by cutting back on SS payments.

The good politicians want to find the money from somewhere else. Meaning - Not borrow, but take.

As you say - it's tricky, but slashing SS is not the answer.

Some cuts? Maybe.

Here's a way of looking at the accounting problem...

Say I am holding $1,000 for you.

Say that I lose that $1,000.

Now, I have to earn twice as much to give you back that $1,000 and keep myself even.
I have to earn $2,000.

That is the position the government finds itself with the SS trust fund money.

I understand the accounting problem, but that's not a problem for the creditors - working Americans. It should be dealt with separately. There should be zero cuts to SS.

In my opinion, SS should be raised by 22%, the age lowered to 50 and all incomes should be taxed equally across the board. And it will be, eventually. It has to be done.

So I'm not seeing the distinction, except in terms of the fact that the wealthy have a far larger interest in making sure our dollar continues to be valued, as opposed to social security, from which they really do not need to draw in order to survive in old age, as the middle class does and will.

to the $2.4 trillion that is supposed to be in the SS trust fund?

over 2 trillion dollars. Which makes you wonder why anyone even though of extending them, especially considering the fact that they did not create jobs as was the excuse for them in the first place.

The logical thing to do would have been to let them expire.

It's already been pointed out to you that the SS Fund receives INTEREST ON THOSE BONDS and that interest has always been paid.

Contrary to the impression given in that article, SS does NOT rely solely on the payroll taxes to pay benefits and has failed to collect enough in payroll taxes several times in the past. It failed to do so 11 YEARS since its inception, but still met its obligations to beneficiaries. So there is nothing at all unusual, nor does it mean that SS cannot meet its obligation to its beneficiaries, about the payroll tax not covering the payout of benefits.

This rightwing fear-mongering regarding SS should not be promoted by democrats, elected or unelected.

And this reposting of that article is spam at this point. Especially since you do not respond to comments on it.

Explain please how cutting SS would reduce the Defitit?

And explain if you can why the biggest and most Wasteful Govt Agency is OFF THE TABLE, the one that actually DOES affect the deficit, The Military Budget?

SS has ZERO to do with the deficit. That is a false claim from the Right.

The trust fund is an accounting gimmick that goes around the law requiring legislative appropriation for Social Security payments.

It's really a way of getting the general fund to pay social security payments in the out years when receipts exceed payments. Do you get what I am saying?

So they supposedly put money into the trust fund but really they spent it. So the ending effect is that the general fund lands up paying the excess until the supposed trust dollars are used up. But since the general funds are all one big deficit anyway...

So it's purpose is to back up payments in law, but that does not tell you how you get the funds to pay it off and laws can be changed.

don't I just redeem my treasury securities as needed to pay my obligations elsewhere?

Why aren't the treasury securities held by the SS Trust fund account considered in the same way as were my treasury securities when they were held in my IRA account for later redempton?

It does not affect Treasury or the public debt at all aside from interest, which currently is not much. Even if you held to maturity, Treasury could just issue a new bond or bill in substitute for yours. It would not change the total debt of the government, therefore you selling your bonds for retirement funds does not change the status quo.

But when those SS & Medicare funds are "redeeemed", now Treasury has to go out and sell a new bill - create debt - to get real money to give to the Trustees so they can pay benefits. And then it has to pay interest on that debt (there was a low rate of interest theoretically "paid" to the Trustees on the funds they gave the general fund, but in fact the interest was just recycled into the general fund.

This is because the Trust Funds didn't go out and buy bills or bonds that were on the market as you did. Instead, they gave the money to the general fund, who gave them back an IOU. This had the effect of artificially lowering current government debt and artificially lowering the interest on the government debt.

Until now. Because Medicare has been drawing down their Trust funds for a few years now, and last year SS went into the red and started drawing down its Trust Fund - so now Treasury has to keep going out and selling more debt to pay the Trustees their money, so now these two programs are both feeding into the federal deficit.

That's why all of sudden they are talking about cuts.

The official US government debt includes the trust funds, and it is at about 95% of GDP. (Once the debt limit is raised, it will suddenly shoot up.) But actual debt held by the public is still only about 9.3 trillion (against a nominal Q1 GDP of 15.1 trillion). This is going to rapidly change, which is why we are in danger of credit rating downgrades in a couple of years.

If the Trustees had been allowed to invest on the open market, they would have real assets now - far more than are now in the Trust Fund - but in the interim, our deficit would have been much worse, and some interim government spending would no doubt have been restrained by the real world.

Currently, a portion of my retirement is held in my Treasury Direct account (not the IRA money). This is where I am currently either buying, selling or in the case of matured funds in the COI, redeeming them as needed.

When I buy my bonds through Treasury Direct, it is through one of the Treasury auctions (not an existing market; I don't even know what exact interest rate I am purchasing them at until close of auction). Where does the treasury put the money with which I bought the bond? When I redeem the bond early at Treasury Direct, where does Treasury Direct get the money from with which to pay me?

Basically, where does it all come from/go to when buying through Treasury Direct at treasury auctions and redeeming via TD? Thanks for any clarity on this.

P.S. Also, what is the the difference between the bond I buy at auction and the "IOU" given to the SS Trust fund - are both a promise to repay? And why does "how" a debtor raises the cash to repay matter more than the fact that debts of any kind require repayment by any means necessary, and esp. where there is a trust/fiduciary responsibility involved?

That's how they get the money to roll over the old ones (which does not increase Debt Held By The Public). If they were running a surplus, they would just use the surplus. Okay, I know right now that's fantasy, but....

The new debt added to Debt Held By The Public each year comes from our current cash-flow deficits. When SS and Medicare were running surpluses, those surpluses cut the cash flow deficits and therefore relatively reduced Debt Held By The Public.

Treasury Direct is the best way to go IMO. Yes, you're right you can't know exactly what you are buying until the auction is over, but I think you generally can do better than by later buying retail from the primary dealers if you know what you are doing and you bid well.

The difference between the bond you buy at auction and the SS/Medicare paper is that yours is marketable. You can sell to anyone at any time, or buy from anyone at any time. And the interest will always be paid to whoever holds the security when it is due. All of the trust funds hold almost all of their funds in special obligations created by the Treasury. They cannot be sold. The only way to redeem them is either to add to Debt Held By The Public or to run cash-flow surpluses, which is effectively impossible now that we are drawing down SS and Medicare trust funds.

Therefore you can liquidate at any time, and receive whatever the market value is at that time. The hapless Trustees of the SS and Medicare funds cannot. Therefore, although in theory their debt has the same legal standing as your debt, in fact it does not. It is not liquid.

There are two important real world implications for the Trustees versus you. First, the Trustees cannot manage their funds for return, as you can. Second, because our ability to borrow will become constrained once Debt Held By The Public exceeds 90% of nominal GDP, you are effectively ahead of the Trustees in order of secured payment. This is very good for you but very bad for future SS recipients:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Current nominal GDP as of Q1 was 15.1 trillion. As we can see at the above link, even including an extra 500 billion that will be almost immediately added to Debt Held By The Public, the total is still under 70%. This explains why no one is worried right now about getting repaid, and why Treasuries are gaining in price. They truly are currently much safer than, say, Italian debt, and they actually still yield less than German Bunds, because Germany is considered to carry higher risk in the near term.

However if we add net about 3 trillion over the next four years, everything changes. As soon as we get close to that 90% line, we are going to start having trouble borrowing. Either we then adopt on a course of destructive devaluation (default by deflating the real value of the obligation) or we simply revise our social programs so that we don't redeem the built-up surpluses, which of course means that we pay SS recipients less in the way of real benefits.

In short, you are able to manage your risk. By law, the Trustees of the Medicare and SS funds are unable to manage their risk.

Because their bonds are not currently issued on the open market, all of their risk is future, and unless we can bring the US budget deficit under control within a decade, the real value of their holdings will vastly decline.

You might ask how we know that those Trust funds are at risk?

The answer is contained at the link, which here I give again:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Total governmental debt, which is the sum of intragovernmental debt holdings and Debt Held By The Public, is currently now at 14.3 trillion. We will add about 500 billion almost immediately when the debt limit is raised, which takes us to the 14.8 trillion level. This is so close to 100% that it is the reason everyone announced long ago that the real "date" was August 2nd. The reason for picking that date was that Q2 GDP is due to be released Friday, July 29th. This will give us a new number for nominal GDP, which will be higher because of the high inflation. Thus it will be much less of a shock to the investors to see Debt Held By The Public abruptly adjust upwards.

After 80% the risk of sovereign default rises sharply, but it depends quite a bit on real growth. Credit raters would tend to get nervous with low real growth rates and 80% debt/GDP ratio. At 90% the risk of sovereign default jacks way up, and that is when the raters start looking at deficits each year to see whether it is plausible to believe that the rate of GDP growth can outweigh the rate of debt growth.

At 100%, the raters look almost solely at whether the country can run a primary surplus (i.e., they are now asking the question "Is there any possibility this country will NOT default?")

A primary surplus is when government spending ex interest is less than government revenue. At that point, a very moderate level of sustained inflation will allow the country to continue to pay down its debt without growing the debt/GDP ratio, as long as the government can sustain the fiscal discipline. It is still more common than not for such a country to default, because every country runs deficits during recessions, and recessions come on average every seven or eight years. Therefore it is very hard to pay down your debt/GDP ratio over the long run once you get to 100%.

So now we step back and realize that if the Trustees had still been buying their treasuries at auctions or from dealers (i.e., on the market), our Debt/GDP would now be almost exactly 100%. So then we look at growth rates, and we see that the US is growing quite slowly. Indeed, real growth rates we are now experiencing are commonly those seen in the US leading up to a recession. And last, we look at whether the US is running a primary surplus. Well, not only are we not, but we are running one of the world's highest primary deficits.

So, if those SS & Medicare funds had been invested on the market, no one would be willing to lend us a dime right now. Therefore, it is safe to say that those funds cannot be converted into cash, and that they even less likely to be converted into cash in the future. We may raise taxes to try to cover SS, but we will not ever float debt to pay for it because in the process of doing so we would destroy our financial system due to destroying our credit rating.

The last determinative factor is whether the country is running a current account surplus, i.e. exporting more than it imports. Doing that provides more money to pay interest on debt, so the near-term default risk is much lower.

Japan has consistently run current account surpluses, so that is why investors never worried about it and that Japan has been able to jack up its debt/GDP ratio to about 200%. It is about to fall on their heads, however. It will do so in the form of internal disaster, because most of that debt is debt Japan owes to its own people.

Italy and the US run consistent current account deficits, which is why Italy is now on the firing line and we are getting close to the line.

In the wake of WWII, US public debt was far higher than 100%. It was not a problem. But back then we were running large trade surpluses, so we were able to both grow the economy and shrink the debt/GDP ratio. For quite a while back then we basically balanced our current account by giving people money to buy our goods.

This is now not the case:


This is from the St. Louis Fed Fred system:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOPBGS?cid=125

I've been re-reading your responses, checking the links, reviewing all the legislative history at the ssa.gov site, along with the case law (some I'd read years ago, back when I was young and social security was nothing more than a footnote about some event in the distant future, ie I paid little attention:)

And I've apparently been quite intellectually lazy. There is much more that needs to be read and to sink in; however, I simply didn't take the time to understand how social security was set up, and why it was set up that way (the appropriations clause in the constitution, and where we were at at time in history) and what it means when applied to where we are at this juncture. I just did the quick fix of applying my own personal experiences to the situation, where they are simply not relevant.

I get it now, and can't thank you enough - it has been the subject of much lively debate here at home since your first posts (sorry for the delay in responding, dialup plus some stuff demanding my immediate time in my offline life). Actually, quite a few, "oh.my. wow" moments here, indeed. In fact, I've been able to make complete sense of everything I'd previously read that seem inconsistent based on my incomplete understanding of the situation. For that reason, I feel much better - but also much worse, because I understand where we are at, and why this isn't good. I am also taking a minute to wrap my mind around the "whys" of how we got here, and I am not happy about quite a few aspects of what I know understand. That is an understatement, too.

But it is a relief to no longer be in the fog about this issue which had gripped me for awhile, and without you taking the time to respond so much, I'd still be making simplistic statements that are just, well, 1st grade for lack of a better term:) I plan to keep reading and drillng down on this subject, but hey, now I have the correct framework.

Thanks so much and take care from the slow-witted one in Oregon:)

A lot of economists haven't grasped it either, and virtually none of the journalists have. Most of Congress doesn't understand this either. A few years back some FRB economists tried to explain it to a panel, and half of them simply couldn't grasp the idea that the trust funds didn't contain any funds but rather were a record of future liabilities.

I think this is partly because of how frightening the situation is. In the US, we must make drastic changes.
Defaulting on SS for most recipients is simply not an option. But paying it will require significant tax increases.

So when you loan money to someone and they start paying you back
and then you use that money to go out to dinner, you are claiming that person
is actually buying you dinner??

It happened in 2010.

And it's continuing, and would even if we did not have the danged FICA cut this year.

:mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Ownership_of_debt

as of january 2011, foreigners hold only 32% of the total debt.

and in fact, the social security surplus is invested in treasuries, so defaulting on treasuries means screwing social security as well.


what REALLY should be on the table is pork for all those damn republicans holding the gun to our heads.

Why should only Social Security get stiffed?

Then the value of that money is decreased by inflation which is a cut anyway.

Basically there are three sources to pay these funds...tax revenue, bond sales, and printing money. Printing money is usually the last resort because of what it does to your currency. It is one thing to print money to reflate an economy and another to do so to pay back debt.

but it's not OK to not pay everyone else?

They, meaning the right, have been saying it for decades. The problem now is that some Democrats appear to be saying it also. Which still doesn't make it right, no matter how they try to twist and obfuscate, the SS Trust Fund has a surplus, it is invested in US Treasury Bonds which are backed by the 'full faith and credit' of the US Govt. The Interest on those bonds has ALWAYS been paid. To default on those bonds would send other creditors into a panic.

This rightwing argument is old, and it's wrong and it's corrected and explained over and over again. And it's a shame to see it creeping over to the Dem. side of the aisle.

It becomes exhausting correcting these fals statements especially here on DU where one would assume people would not be spreading these rightwing scare tactics regarding SS.

The way to NOT jeopardize the People's Fund, iow, The SS Trust Fund is for the Federal Govt to get its act together, to start pulling up its bootstraps and stop spending OUR money on bailing out Wall St. Gamblers, and wars, and cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans rewarding them for doing nothing for this country. Once the Fed. Govt gets its act together and starts facing its responsibility it will be able to meed its obligations to its creditors. One of those creditors is the American People. Equally entitled to being repaid as China and if it is not, if the Fed Govt defaults on the American people, other creditors will panic. Which is why we know that will not happen.

1) End the Bush Tax Cuts

2) Cut the Military Budget in half at least, that alone would take care of the deficit.

3) Raise the cap on SS taxes

4) Create Jobs which will bring in more revenue and stop rewarding those who export jobs.

Just a few ways the Fed Govt can start doing its job.

There is no need for the three 'ways' you mention, none at all, unless the Govt refuses to do what is right.

Either we pay them out of taxes, or we float new debt 'print more money' to pay them. How we meet debt obligations is not altered by what agency is holding those notes.

Aside from interest, which is a very small percent of the total, when a treasury bond matures Treasury simply replaces that debt with a new bill or bond. The difference is that this doesn't raise the Debt Held by the Public, so it is not a threat to our fiscal position.

When money has to be raised to repay the SS or Medicare Trust Fund, both of which are drawing down their assets now, NEW debt that RAISES the Debt Held by the Public has to be floated. This is only important when a country gets close to the danger point, but we are.

Current Debt Held by the Public is 9.3 trillion against a nominal GDP of 5.1 trillion. But there is an additional 4.6 trillion in various government trust funds. Together this is about 95% of GDP, and 90% of GDP is the point at which a lot of governments have gone on to default. So our credit rating will be downgraded if we try to use all of the trust funds, which is why we are forced to cut spending and raise taxes.

This is why those programs have to be changed. It is not about default on SS in 2025. It is not about default on Disability in 2017 or 2018. It is about our credit rating.

Full faith and credit only means anything if we can still borrow!

if push comes to shove, obama should start cancelling projects, especially those that affect republican districts, bringing troops home, etc. and blaming it all on the republicans.

social security has a separate tax that deliberately ran up a huge surplus to pay for the boomers' retirement, so it would be criminal to stiff social security.

and it would be utterly insane to default on treasuries. all that would do would cause the treasury to borrow at a higher interest rate forever in the future, which only makes the problem many times worse.

And we all should have nukes. :evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Please be specific, thanks.

taken out of every worker's paycheck since SS was passed. We workers are owed this cash money, period.

PAY IT BACK, you assholes!

:nuke:
sw

Not much else to say, is there?x(

How do you make the Chinese lend you money?

on wars and bailouts for criminals and you stop giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Amercians. If you think the Chinese are not watching where the Fed Govt is spending all that money and worrying about it, you would be wrong. And the Chinese will be watching to see if this Govt defaults on the American People and if it does, they will be very, very worried about getting paid back also. Which is why all this talk of the US Govt not honoring the Treasury Bonds invested in by the American People is nothing more than a scare tactic, most often used by the Right.

How much do you think Boner would be worth to help pay down our debt?

We didn't pay in promissory notes, or "financial instruments", we paid in cash money, dammit.

For the same reason that it's okay to break contracts when they are union contracts or workers' pensions, but it not okay to break contracts when they are multimillion $$ bonuses for banksters.

And the reason is: our politicians serve the interests of the wealthy elites. Period. End of sentence.

"When did it become acceptable for the people who MAKE the money to be lorded over by the people who COUNT the money?"

that it IS acceptable in the first place seems to be the answer to your question...

FFS, when will they get it?

The dipsticks who are doing this were ELECTED. Sure I believe in election fraud to a point, but SOMEBODY had to vote for these shits.

And those people who voted for republicans don't get to whine about what is happening now. Unless they're willing to start working their asses off to elect Democrats.

Oh and for you Dems that get hammered as collateral damage? Straighten your fucking neighbors and family out.

:rant:

Sorry but this debt ceiling bullshit is about the sorriest fucking display of mass ignorance that I've seen in awhile and I'm not feeling much sympathy for anyone right now.