Obama Fear Mongering Social Security

On what legal basis can the President unilaterally decide to fully fund Social Security to the exclusion of other items budgeted by Congress? Yes, the President could theoretically ensure that all Social Security recipients got their full checks, but in order to do that he would have to unilaterally cut other things that Congress has appropriated funds for to zero. I don't see the legal basis for that.

ROFLMAO.... you are such a complete party hack. Who the fuck said he had a legal basis to do it on his own? Anyone? No, that is simply a fucking straw man attempt to divert the conversation.

The President is FEAR MONGERING. The public sees HIM in front of the camera saying "I can't guarantee Social Security checks will go out". THAT IS FEAR MONGERING. The public does NOT see the statements of every member of Congress who is responsible. So enough of your stupidity. As stated, he is FEAR MONGERING. Trying to SCARE SENIORS into believing their checks may be at risk.

In all seriousness, I don't see how the president can ensure that SS and Medicare are fully funded while other things are eliminated.

In all seriousness, you are a partisan douche bag.

IN all seriousness, NO ONE IS ASKING THE PRESIDENT TO GUARANTEE SS checks. But tell us dung.... WHY do you think the President chose SS to bring up as something that 'might not get paid'??? Why did he not instead say 'I can't guarantee Congressional checks will go out'????

I wonder.
 
ROFLMAO.... you are such a complete party hack. Who the fuck said he had a legal basis to do it on his own? Anyone? No, that is simply a fucking straw man attempt to divert the conversation.

The President is FEAR MONGERING. The public sees HIM in front of the camera saying "I can't guarantee Social Security checks will go out". THAT IS FEAR MONGERING. The public does NOT see the statements of every member of Congress who is responsible. So enough of your stupidity. As stated, he is FEAR MONGERING. Trying to SCARE SENIORS into believing their checks may be at risk.

I've already conceded that whether this is "fear mongering" is a matter of opinion. You certainly are entitled to yours. I was trying to move the discussion along to a different, related aspect. "Is too! Is not!" isn't a terribly interesting discussion.

In any event, unless Congress passes a bill that directs the President to spend revenues in a certain manner, the President would be forced to unilaterally decide how the cash flow received by the government is to be allocated among the various things that Congress has authorized to be funded. It isn't a straw man. It's the reality that we would face if the debt ceiling is not increased by August 2.

The government would be operating on a cash flow basis and the cash flow would be insufficient to fund everything. So, what gets funded and what does not? On what basis does the President make the allocating decisions? What authority does he have to make those decisions?

Additionally, in order to ensure that the US government does not default, the government has to have $29 billion cash on hand to make interest payments on August 15. Can it do that if it sends out $50 billion in Social Security checks on August 3? If not, is it fear mongering to suggest that Social Security checks are not guaranteed?

In all seriousness, you are a partisan douche bag.

IN all seriousness, NO ONE IS ASKING THE PRESIDENT TO GUARANTEE SS checks. But tell us dung.... WHY do you think the President chose SS to bring up as something that 'might not get paid'??? Why did he not instead say 'I can't guarantee Congressional checks will go out'????

I wonder.

Because it matters to people and it's a lot of money and people that depend on Social Security checks for their existence ought to be aware that their source of income is not guaranteed. No one gives a fuck if Congress doesn't get paid. Members of Congress can afford to miss a paycheck and don't need the president to tell them that they might not get paid if the debt ceiling is not increased.
 
The debt will be paid, and what's left over will be devided up.

I'm sure the reps will cave in, but if they don't we'll be looking at cutting some departments.

Let me see:

the department of education, energy, EPA, DEA.

What about the ATF? ETC.

Just what the Republicans have secretly always wanted, to do away with compulsary universal education.... One of the things that made this nation great...
 
Just what the Republicans have secretly always wanted, to do away with compulsary universal education.... One of the things that made this nation great...

I've read several different statistics but the U.S. ranks somewhere between 15th and 18th for our quality of education. Pretty sad.
 
Lets do away with the Department of Education.... Let the states pay for education and decide if its necessary to educate kids anyway. If the parents want to pay to educate the kids, let them, if not, well they can suffer the consiquences.
 
Just what the Republicans have secretly always wanted, to do away with compulsary universal education.... One of the things that made this nation great...

with the educational level of idiots we have today, the dude for example, how can you say that with any semblance of a straight face?
 
Karl Rove NAIL'S IT!

In the WSJ

The weaker the hand Barack Obama has to play, the more sanctimonious he becomes. That was clear in his news conference last week when the president lectured Congress that "there's no point in procrastinating," and argued senators and representatives "need to do their job" and raise the debt ceiling. He presented himself as a model of fiscal discipline, the one serious adult in a city full of distracted children. This claim is detached from reality.

It is Mr. Obama who proposed—and Democratic congressional majorities that passed—the spending bills in 2009 and 2010 that are pushing the federal government up against the current debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion. It is Mr. Obama who started the year by demanding Congress pass a "clean" debt ceiling increase to $16.7 trillion—"clean" meaning no cuts or restraint, just a blank check to keep spending. Mr. Obama is the one without a budget, the Senate having sent his to the bottom of the Potomac by a 97-0 vote. And he has yet to publicly offer a real plan to cut spending, as House Republicans did months ago.

Thus, in backroom negotiations recently, the administration offered roughly $1 trillion in phony savings—mostly money that would never have been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next 10 years anyway, along with $500 billion in interest savings on the trillion. It has also offered another supposed trillion in domestic and entitlement savings, but with cuts starting in 2014 and unlikely ever to be realized.

If the administration's spending cuts are mostly fake, its desire for tax increases is not. While the proposals are constantly shifting, you can be sure the president is looking to grab big chunks of cash from lots of people (and small businesses) who make less than a million a year.

There's still time for the president to make history's largest debt-ceiling increase a moment when spending is curbed, a debt crisis averted, entitlement programs saved, and a fraying social safety net repaired.

As a liberal Democrat, this could be Mr. Obama's Nixon-to-China moment. He could draw on ideas with fairly broad bipartisan support, including changing the way benefits are indexed for inflation, raising the age at which people start receiving benefits, and modest means-testing. These reforms wouldn't make Medicare or Social Security permanently solvent, but they would put the programs on firmer financial ground for decades. It would be good for the country, to say nothing of Mr. Obama's re-election chances.

To date, the president has convinced himself his political self-interest is best served by savaging his GOP opposition and insisting, as he did in last week's press conference, that gigantic tax increases must be part of any "balanced approach."
 
Nope...you all decided the "lock box" wasn't worth it and voted for Dubya...

I bet the idea of a lock box looks pretty good to some right about now.

That's pretty good Zappa!

Only I blame the dems as well.

I'm glad I don't defend either Faction.
 
what legal basis does obama have for threatening SS funds?

Is he's saying that he's going to fund the EPA, Department of Enegy, and things that make life harder on tax payers before he pays for SS,,,,,,,,,

Let's get this right,,,, SS, Med, Mil, etc, will be at the bottom of the bills to be paid?
 
:clap: THIS!

Yeah, this is exactly why, Congress should fully fund this before anything else...and then the fact that we have men in harms way is EXACTLY why the military should also be fully funded ahead of other spending!

Poloticians have ran on this lock box for the last 60+ years.

Especially the dems.

If the money is not there, what will they run on next time?

We lied?
 
Is he's saying that he's going to fund the EPA, Department of Enegy, and things that make life harder on tax payers before he pays for SS,,,,,,,,,

Let's get this right,,,, SS, Med, Mil, etc, will be at the bottom of the bills to be paid?

Certainly seems that way:

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-peth...e-issue-isnt-default-but-government-shutdown/

The issue isn’t default but government shutdown
Jul 12, 2011
James Pethokoukis
Politics and policy from inside Washington

Here’s a great chart from Goldman Sachs that shows how government revenues and obligations will likely match up in August:

gs1.jpg



As is clearly shown, there is enough cumulative money coming to pay interest, SS, Medicare and defense. Not that there wouldn’t be cash managements issues. That and several other issues are addressed in a Q&A from a GS report last week. Some excerpts (bold is mine):

Q: What happens on August 3 if the debt limit is not increased?

A: … Using August 2010 spending and receipts as a proxy, the Treasury will probably take in $5-$10 bn in revenue on August 3, leaving insufficient revenues to make Social Security payments partly unfunded even if all other spending is deferred. Since the Treasury has carried a minimum cash balance of about $20 bn since 2009, and currently carries a balance of $74 bn, Social Security payments might still be made by drawing down the Treasury’s cash balance.

Q: Are Treasury interest payments at risk?

A: We do not think so. … There are two basic reasons that interest payments should not be called into question: First, if the August 2 deadline is missed, it is very difficult to see the debate dragging to August 15, when interest payments are made, since we doubt there will much congressional appetite for a protracted lapse in borrowing authority. … Second, the Treasury is likely to prioritize payments. While the sharp fiscal contraction that would result from prioritization would have negative short-term economic consequences and would be difficult to implement, it nevertheless seems likely if necessary.

Q: If other non-interest payments are missed, would that constitute a default?

A: Probably not, at least from the rating agency perspective. The rating agencies have not been entirely clear on this point, but S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch all appear to view a failure to pay other obligations to be different from a default. S&P has already put the US on negative outlook due to longer-term fiscal issues, and the other two rating agencies have indicated they will move to a negative outlook if no agreement is reached by August 2.
 
Lets do away with the Department of Education.... Let the states pay for education and decide if its necessary to educate kids anyway. If the parents want to pay to educate the kids, let them, if not, well they can suffer the consiquences.

Worse case would be the federal government having a say at my expense.

Which is what we have now.
 
Just what the Republicans have secretly always wanted, to do away with compulsary universal education.... One of the things that made this nation great...

Being a Libertarian, I'd say, "you're only half right".

Judging your statement I'd also have to say, "dumb too".
 
Back
Top