Obama "can't guarantee" SS checks will go out.. why can't he?

[bikerdruid]

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Obama cannot guarantee that Social Security payments continue uninterrupted.

None whatsoever.

However, that does not suit his political purposes.

He wants to scare senior citizens against Republicans, like lying Democrats repeatedly do.

sure, just print up more money that is worth nothing.
bush bankrupted your nation.
if there is no money, there can be no payments.
it is fraud to write rubber cheques.

 

[Toontown]

Get real. No, Obama is not lying. Without the advent of fiscal reality in the form of a debt ceiling increase, he really cannot guarantee the checks will go out. No one can guarantee anything in a milieu where the politikers are on the highway, heading straight toward each other with pedals to metal, intent on forcing the other stubborn ass to swerve first.

In such a nation of buttheads, nothing can ever be "guaranteed". Hell, I'll be surprised if the birds keep singing. How can they? Don't they know it's the End Of The World?

So Obama is playing dirty politics right back at all the rest of the ideologically-driven suicide bombers. He's telling all of them that they are doing nothing but proving that all the bad things the people are saying about them are are true, unless a sufficient number of the bozos are prepared to step up, commit political suicide, and make the Big Deal that can avert fiscal collapse.

Or not, in which case Obama is threatening to push his own version of the little red detonator button, and blow up all the jerks, Democrat, Republican, Teabagger, lizard, whatever.

"Screw it", Obama is saying. "Let's go. Let's go right now, you turds. All of you. Let's do this thing. I don't give a rat's ass. You've already dipped my presidency in crap, you spineless, mindless jackals. Now I'm taking the rest of your asses with me."

I like it.

Go down gambling
Sing it, when you're running low
Go down gambling
You may never have to go

 

[johnny karate]

Democrats? Yeah. That fits.

As a paid DNC shill, I resent your remark.

 

[mhaze]

........

"Screw it", Obama is saying. "Let's go. Let's go right now, you turds. All of you. Let's do this thing. I don't give a rat's ass. You've already dipped my presidency in crap, you spineless, mindless jackals. Now I'm taking the rest of your asses with me."

.....

yep, that is an accurate description of the attitude problem in the white house.

Real presidential..........

 

[johnny karate]

yep, that is an accurate description of the attitude problem in the white house.

Real presidential..........

Obama has expressed his willingness to compromise. The Republicans have made it clear they refuse to do so.

Who has the attitude problem?

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

You mean the government "shutdowns"?

No. I mean the debt ceiling situation in 1995. Treasury prematurely redeemed SS bonds to keep the checks going. It was legally questionable at the time, but afterward congress passed this law recognizing that authority:

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F104-121.html

(a) In General.—No officer or employee of the United States shall—

(3) redeem prior to maturity amounts in any Federal fund which are invested in public debt obligations for any purpose other than the payment of benefits or administrative expenses from such Federal fund.

Those bonds can be prematurely redeemed as long as the purpose is to pay SS benefits. Which is what they did in 1995.

 

[JudeBrando]

What? Is the lockbox trust fund empty?

Government revenues incoming are $150-200 Billion per month.

The liars looted the promised and so-called Social Security lockbox trust fund.

I'm sure no Democrats wish to hold anyone responsible for that...

They can still pay anyway out of that regular monthly income,
unless somebody decides not to do so, for some reason...

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

What? Is the lockbox trust fund empty?

Well it's full of special Treasuries. Call them IOUs if you wish, but the fact is they're already counted in the national debt. Shifting that debt from one place to another wouldn't violate the ceiling.

They can still pay anyway out of that regular monthly income,
unless somebody decides not to do so, for some reason...

Yeah they could prioritize it even if there weren't such an easy way to pay the benefits in a debt-neutral manner.. But they already have no choice but to prioritize bond payments so it would be kinda hard to manage without at least slashing the size of the benefits.

 

[johnny karate]

What? Is the lockbox trust fund empty?

Government revenues incoming are $150-200 Billion per month.

The liars looted the promised and so-called Social Security lockbox trust fund.

I'm sure no Democrats wish to hold anyone responsible for that...

They can still pay anyway out of that regular monthly income,
unless somebody decides not to do so, for some reason...

Next time try posting in all caps. That makes a rant extra true.

 

[Complexity]

We usually have a word for people who sweep truth under the rug in order to promulgate a falsehood, don't we?

Liars for Jesus?

(although that is a phrase rather than a word)

 

[Bri]

No. I mean the debt ceiling situation in 1995. Treasury prematurely redeemed SS bonds to keep the checks going. It was legally questionable at the time, but afterward congress passed this law recognizing that authority:

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F104-121.html



Those bonds can be prematurely redeemed as long as the purpose is to pay SS benefits. Which is what they did in 1995.

Once again, not necessarily, according to the Wasington Post Fact Checker:

Still, during the 1996 debt limit crisis, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin announced that Treasury did not have sufficient funds to pay Social Security benefits. Congress rushed to pass a special law that said the Social Security benefits did not count against the debt limit. Was this designed to pressure the Republican-led Congress, or had even a shrewd operator like Rubin run out of options? However, Congress later that year passed a law, PL 104-121, that codified Treasury’s authority to use Social Security trust funds to pay benefits and administration expenses in the event a debt ceiling is reached, which could give the administration the authority they need in the current crisis.

The Congressional Research Service has also explored this question in a series of reports this year. The answer is unfortunately inconclusive and buried in a footnote: “Under normal procedures Treasury pays Social Security benefits from the General Fund and offsets this by redeeming an equivalent amount of the trust funds’ holdings of government debt. In order to pay Social Security benefits, and depending on the government’s cash position at the time, Treasury may need to issue new public debt to raise the cash needed to pay benefits. Treasury may be unable to issue new public debt, however, because of the debt limit. Social Security benefit payments may be delayed or jeopardized if the Treasury does not have enough cash on hand to pay benefits.”

...

Late Tuesday night, however, the Treasury Department cast serious doubt on whether it was feasible to keep paying Social Security benefits if the debt limit had been breached.

“This type of financial engineering is untested, may not work, and is of questionable legality,” a Treasury official told us. “It is not feasible for Treasury to borrow from the public, each day, the precise amount of Social Security payments due without breaching the debt limit. In addition, it is questionable whether it is legal to redeem Social Security trust fund assets in advance of payments. Moreover, this presumes that Treasury will have full access to the financial markets if the debt limit is not raised.”​

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

While there might be money to pay the SS checks, who is going to cut them? In the past, government offices, including Social Security, tell all their workers to stay home until they can pay them again. I don't think people realize how much they rely on Federal offices. If the US goes into default, all hell will break loose, and despite their protestations, the Republicans will be blamed.

I think what's more likely to happen is some version of the McConnell back-up plan that will essentially allow Congress to vote to let Obama raise the debt ceiling (with Congress being able to prevent it only by a 2/3 majority that Obama can then veto). In other words, it will let them vote to raise the debt ceiling to avoid defaulting on our debt and still be able to tell their base that they didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling--that Obama did it against their wishes.

Conniving bastards. They should at least have the courage to do what they say or be forced to change their bogus ideology to fit what they really think should be done.

 

[Bri]

I'm not so sure. Nobody would fall for it, the Republicans would look like cowards, the Tea Partiers would not be happy because their party didn't get any spending cuts out of the deal, and Obama would get what he wanted all along -- a clean raise of the debt ceiling with no string attached.

-Bri

 

[Toontown]

Each time the D's and R's lock horns on the usual fiscal and ideological issues, I am struck by the horrific implications of it all. There are essentially (4) possibilities:

1. The D's are right. The R's are woefully ignorant, or possibly the manifestation of an evil fascist plot.

2. The R's are right. The D's are woefully ignorant, or possibly the manifestation of an evil commie plot.

3. Both packs of diametrically opposed chest-beaters are wrong.

Analysis: All of the bozos cannot possibly be right, since they are diametrically opposed. All of the bozos, can, however, be wrong, since diametric opposition need not include correctness on either side of the divide.

Inevitable conclusion considering 1-3: At least half of the bozos who have jabbered, demagogued, connived, and wormed their way to power in Washington do not even have the basic fundamentals of governance worked out in their confused minds. Which means, in turn, that the people who voted the clueless bozos into office are also clueless bubble-dwellers.

There is, however, one remaining hopeful possibility (4), which is really our only remaining hope. Perhaps the politikers aren't even trying to be right on the fundamental principles of governance. Not in public, anyway. Perhaps they are simply appealing to their respective boneheaded voting blocs by taking diametrically opposed positions on what they all know are really very simple issues. Then, after they're finished striking ludicrous poses to please their respective voting blocs, they will find a way to do what must be done without the stupid voter fringes being any the wiser.

Gosh, I hope it's (4). Any other possibility would mean at least half of our fearless leaders are actually clueless bozos, voted into power by large mobs of other clueless bozos.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not so sure. Nobody would fall for it, the Republicans would look like cowards, the Tea Partiers would not be happy because their party didn't get any spending cuts out of the deal, and Obama would get what he wanted all along -- a clean raise of the debt ceiling with no string attached.

Well, there's really already general bipartisan agreement on a long-term deficit reduction plan, so the only thing the GOP would be giving up for this short term solution is no guarantee of there never ever being tax increases for the next 10 years or so. (And of course the McConnell back up plan would not authorize any tax increases!)

And I think the shenanigans of the procedure is a significant string attached. It's anything but a "clean raise of the debt ceiling". As I said, it would allow them to vote to increase the debt ceiling while claiming that they voted against it.

ETA: Another proposal I heard for the long term plan is to establish a small bipartisan committee to come up with a recommendation, and agree in advance that the entire Congress will pass that recommendation with no amendments. The sticking point on this, again, is that the GOP wants a no tax increase guarantee, which sort of defeats the purpose. (And we've already seen non-partisan commissions give recommendations that includes rolling back tax cuts in addition to the spending cuts both sides agree on.)

 

[mhaze]

.........: Another proposal I heard for the long term plan is to establish a small bipartisan committee to come up with a recommendation, and agree in advance that the entire Congress will pass that recommendation with no amendments.

that worked in brazil in 1992......their commission implemented law that made it a felony to loan money to the federal government.

 

[mhaze]

.........: Another proposal I heard for the long term plan is to establish a small bipartisan committee to come up with a recommendation, and agree in advance that the entire Congress will pass that recommendation with no amendments.

that worked in brazil in 1992......their commission implemented law that made it a felony to loan money to the federal government.

We could have some of that fun, too!

 

[Bri]

Well, there's really already general bipartisan agreement on a long-term deficit reduction plan, so the only thing the GOP would be giving up for this short term solution is no guarantee of there never ever being tax increases for the next 10 years or so.

There's a general bipartisan agreement on a long-term deficit reduction plan? What is it, and does it include any tax increases? If it doesn't include any tax increases, a significant number of Democrats still agreed to it? If it does include increased taxes, a significant number of Republicans agreed to it despite the pledge they signed to never raise taxes?

And I think the shenanigans of the procedure is a significant string attached. It's anything but a "clean raise of the debt ceiling". As I said, it would allow them to vote to increase the debt ceiling while claiming that they voted against it.

Who would they be appeasing by claiming that they voted against raising the debt ceiling? The Tea Partiers will be more than miffed that the Republicans gave up the one thing they wanted in exchange for raising the debt ceiling -- a chance of attaching massive spending cuts to the debt limit increase. More moderate Republicans want them to raise the debt ceiling, so voting against a raise of the debt ceiling while allowing the president to act like the adult might be somewhat problematic for them.

ETA: Plus it would be a win for the President, who would get what he wanted to begin with, and we can't have that. I think in the end they'll agree to some spending cuts (something far less than $4 trillion) and no raise in taxes (maybe closing some minor loopholes that the Republicans can claim with a straight face isn't really a raise in taxes).

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

that worked in brazil in 1992......their commission implemented law that made it a felony to loan money to the federal government.

You quoted part of my post, yet your comment has nothing to do with it.

The committee would recommend what spending cuts and tax increases to pass in order to rein in the deficit. I'm quite certain no bipartisan congressional committee would recommend making it a felony to loan money to the federal government (whatever that even means).

Are you seriously worried that that might happen?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a general bipartisan agreement on a long-term deficit reduction plan?

Yes. Both sides agree on spending cuts. Negotiation of differences is not really a major problem. They keep painting it as an ideological difference, but it's really just dickering over numbers. That's nothing new or insurmountable.

What is it, and does it include any tax increases?

As I said, that's the sticking point. It still seems that the GOP will agree to no long term plan unless there is a promise never ever ever forever to raise taxes.

If it doesn't include any tax increases, a significant number of Democrats still agreed to it?

See the most recent budget compromise. It was not tweaks and amendments to the budget Obama proposed. Instead, it was a compromise starting from the GOP proffered budget*, and it followed the granting of an extension of the Bush tax cuts (even for the wealthy) in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits. So, to date, the Democrats have indeed already agreed to spending cuts without a tax increase. In fact, since Obama has been in office, various taxes have only been cut.

Who would they be appeasing by claiming that they voted against raising the debt ceiling?

Bachmann's base, for example. She has pledged never to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling. Yet she must know that we really have to increase it. The McConnell plan would essentially be a way to raise the debt ceiling yet still let her claim she kept her word to oppose it.

*[ETA: And by "compromise" I mean the Democrats gave the Republicans everything they first demanded, but the GOP refused to take "yes" for an answer and demanded more--even threatening the shutdown of the government over attempts to push ideological amendments regarding Planned Parenthood and NPR under the guise of deficit reduction.]

The Tea Partiers will be more than miffed that the Republicans gave up the one thing they wanted in exchange for raising the debt ceiling -- a chance of attaching massive spending cuts to the debt limit increase.

I'm sure that's what they'd like to hold out for, but I'm equally sure they know they'd be blamed if the U.S. did default on its debt.

Plus it would be a win for the President, who would get what he wanted to begin with, and we can't have that.

Not really. Obama has been saying he wants a long term plan too. That would be his preferred resolution to this crisis. However, if it doesn't happen, he would accept a short term plan that raises the debt ceiling and continue trying to hash out a long term solution.

Obama would not like there to be no long term resolution in place for another year. The McConnell back-up plan could keep the "crisis" going right up to November of 2012.