Bush Tax Cuts, Wars Account For Nearly Half Of Public Debt

[sabrina 1]

Yet, both the Tax Cuts and the Wars continue while the American people are asked to 'share the sacrifice'!

Our leaders are of the opinion that those responsible for the debt should be rewarded while the elderly and the disabled and dependent children, and America's workers should be put on 'Austerity' programs to help keep them going.

We never hear 'something has to be done about the Wars and the Bush Tax Cuts' in relation to the debt.

We DO hear a lot about 'Entitlement Programs going broke'.

There IS a connection between the two, but NOT the one they are hoping we will make.

They have raided the SS fund to pay their debts and they do not want to pay it back. Because that would mean making the Wealthy 'share the sacrifice'.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@






Off The Charts

As we’ve noted, my colleagues Kathy Ruffing and Jim Horney have updated CBPP’s analysis showing that the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit over the next ten years. So, what about the public debt, which is basically the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses, over the nation’s entire history?

The complementary chart, below, shows that the Bush-era tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — including their associated interest costs — account for almost half of the projected public debt in 2019 (measured as a share of the economy) if we continue current policies.

.....

As Kathy and Jim note, simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade. While we’d have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment.

It makes zero sense for them to be 'looking at Entitlement programs' to try to reduce the debt. Unless they want to keep the SS surplus stable so they can continue to pay for the wars and keep taxes low for themselves.

They have already cut SS benefits by not paying the yearly inflation rate.

Imho, they should:

* Increase SS benefits to help stimulate the economy.
* Lift or raise the cap on SS
* Hold an emergency session of Congress to end the Bush Cuts now.
* Corps who outsource jobs should pay higher taxes.
* End the wars as quickly as possible
* Cut the Pentagon budget in half at least.
* Don't even think about cutting SS, Medicare or Medicaid.

I'm sure there's more that can be done, I am not an economist, math gives me a headache. But it's clear we are being lied to that cutting 'entitlement programs' would even make a dent in the deficit. All it would do is to encourage them to keep the wars going and keep taxes low for those who need it least.

Hands off SS, Medicare and Medicaid! Tax the Wealthy and Democrats should be all over the airwaves blaming Republicans, accusing them of being on the side of Wall St. not Main St. And let them whine all the want about it.

Whicheve Party takes a stand on this issue, will win in 2012 imo.

[Kaleko]

1. So, was this looting done deliberately

and did everything more or less go according to plan, or did they miscalculate due to incompetence?

[sabrina 1]

2. Good question and no matter how you answer it

those responsible should be fired.

I think it was deliberate on the Republican side and Dems went along.

But it can be fixed, so why aren't they fixing it now?

[Wounded Bear]

17. Republicans don't "fix" anything they can profit from.....nt

[Kaleko]

21. Fixing this colossal mess would have to mean more

than just firing those responsible. Lawmakers would actually have to follow existing laws and throw everyone involved in these rackets in jail.

The likelihood of that is... what? One in a billion?

That's where despair sets in and I can't see a realistic way out for Americans other than going through a series of crashes and a final collapse.

[Enthusiast]

31. "But it can be fixed, so why aren't they fixing it now?"

This is the big question. I have very little hope that they will enact tax increases to offset the war spending. What is their goal? Die, die quickly? I don't understand "their" motive.

[TheKentuckian]

15. It almost had to be purposeful but the certain thing is the cover up is purposeful

It is theft and "reform" in this case just means making the theft legal on the back end.

[hfojvt]

3. As I have said before

unfortunately "ending the Bush tax cuts" is off the table.

Obama ran on ending the Bush tax cuts only for couples making over $250,000 a year. And even that he didn't fight very hard for when he had the chance and held the trump card (he could have allowed them to expire for everybody, and then hang that as an albatross around the necks of Republicans).

Obama's own plan was a compromise which a) added too much to the deficit and debt, and b) gave too many of its benefits to the wealthy

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/147

Of Obama's plan CTJ's analysis says this

First, it adds $3 trillion to the debt over the next ten years, and second

"13.3% of that money will goto those in the top 1%, or $400 billion over ten years (plus interest)
However, another 40.9% of that money will goto the other members of the top 20%, or $1.2 trillion
And another 19.3% will goto the other members of the top 40%, or $579 billion.

For a total of $2.2 trillion going to those in the top 40%. Almost 75% going to the top 40% compared to 13.9% going to the bottom 40%."

And Obama didn't even fight for that.

[KansDem]

But he'll fight to end them in 2012!

Obama vows to fight wealthiest tax cuts in 2012

[IndyPragmatist]

8. We will be in the same situation as December of 2010

The reason that we had to extend the cuts was because cutting them off immediately would have caused a huge selloff in the stock markets on December 31st to stay in 2010 rates. When they were created, they had a sunset provision where they would be phased out over a few years to prevent the selloff that was feared in December of 2010. However, when they got passed, this phasing out was absent for some reason. Probably, because they knew that Congress wouldn't act until the last minute and they would be forced to extend them...which they did without a sunset provision AGAIN!

The tax cuts need to be removed, but if we yank them at once, we will see some pain. It would have made sense to phase them out by 2012 or 2013, but Obama sided with the Republicans and gave them the full cuts. We will likely see these tax cuts extended because we will be in the same situation again. We will wait until the last minute, and be afraid of a massive selloff on wall street. This will force congress to cave and extend them yet again.

I'm fairly confident that the removal of the sunset provision was intentional to help extend them in the future. They are easy to get rid of if we phase them out over a couple of years, but difficult if we try and yank them out all at once.

[sabrina 1]

30. Interesting, thank you. I was not aware of this.

Very clever to remove the sunset clause, then. It more or less guaranteed that Congress would not cut them off. Same fear tatctics that are used everywhere else.

[Enthusiast]

32. Right!

It will be different this time!

[sabrina 1]

19. Thank you for your post. I have read your journal post.

I don't know why Democrats caved on the Bush tax cuts, but they would have won that battle had they not taken it off the table during the election campaign. It was set aside until the election was over, which made no sense at all to me, unless the deal was already made.

I never bought the 'compromise'. Unemployment extension was also a winning issue at that time, and never should been allowed to be attached to the Bush Tax cuts.

[hfojvt]

28. I'm not sure about that

I tried to make it a campaign issue, and it seemingly wasn't a winning issue even in the primary. I understand it was some Senate Democrats like Reid, who barely won, and Feingold, who was rightly afraid of losing, who didn't want to address it before the election. There may also have been a number of blue dogs in the House who would have been too afraid to NOT vote for a Republican amendment to extend all of the Bush tax cuts. As it turned out there were a number of Blue Dogs who lost, like Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota and Ike Skelton of Missouri. The Bush tax cuts were and are probably popular in their districts. What bothers me is that Democrats apparently do not use their power of office to educate the public. I know my Republican Representative writes a weekly column (or has a staffer do it) in several newspapers. When I first moved to Kansas, there was this guy Dennis Moore running for re-election and talking about how he was a "tough on crime" county prosecutor and how he "voted for the Bush tax cuts" on TV ads. He never mentioned his party, so I assumed he was the Republican. Nope, he was the Democrat, and much better than the Republican alternatives.

Jean Carnahan, a Democratic Senator from Missouri was saying the same thing in her ads. I am thinking "crud, here I am writing letters to the editor and blog posts trying to inform the public that the Bush tax cuts are bad policy and there they are spending advertising money bragging about voting for bad policy. Well, they both felt it was more realistic than trying to do the hard work of educating voters in their district. Probably both of them voted for the Democratic alternative (I know that Moore did) before flipping and supporting a bill that was gonna pass with or without their vote. So why not cast a meaningless yes vote to help insure your re-election?

[sabrina 1]

35. Interesting, so the Dems were on board in certain states.

This makes it a bit more clear why they took it off the table until after the election. They caved, or agreed, which is even worse, with Republicans? Many Democrats benefit from those tax cuts also, wealthy Democrats.

If they HAD educated the public, the president especially, and as someone else in this thread said, phased them out, starting with the wealthiest, they might have succeeded. True the Repubs would have threatened the middle class cuts, but Dems could have left them, they were in the majority then.

Sad about the Dem boasting about costing this country 2 trillion dollars. Imagine if instead he had pointed that out, and informed the public that if the tax cuts continued, something else would be cut by the Republicans such as Medicare and/or SS.

Sounds to me like some in our party like those tax cuts as much as Republicans do.

Good for you for trying though. It is very disheartening to learn that your party is not even doing that.

[Initech]

4. Yup - four decades of cut, cut, cut so we can support these fucking leeches...

That will get us into trouble every time. :grr: :mad:

[suffragette]

5. Your suggestions are very similar to the ones made in Schakowsky's

Deficit Reduction Plan.
She made her plan while serving on the Deficit Commission as an alternate to the one by Simpson & Bowles.
Interestingly, Democratic leadership has ignored this plan from a Democrat on the Commission.


http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2777:


Schakowsky Offers Alternative to Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan PDF Print


Plan Would Close Deficit without Forcing the Middle Class to Pay the Bill



Read the Schakowsky Deficit Reduction Plan



WASHINGTON, DC (November 16, 2010) – Today Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, offered a comprehensive proposal to reduce the federal deficit without making middle class Americans foot the bill. Schakowsky's plan is an alternative to the Bowles-Simpson plan and would reduce the deficit by $441 billion in 2015, surpassing President Obama’s $250 billion target. Critically, the Schakowsky plan accomplishes deficit reduction without making cuts to essential federal expenditures that benefit the middle class. In unveiling her proposal, Schakowsky made the following statement:


“The President’s Fiscal Commission has been given a concrete goal: to achieve primary budget balance in 2015, ensuring that all spending is paid for except for interest on the national debt. Last week, co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson laid out their plan, which they presented to the Commission and to the public. Their proposal would have serious consequences for lower and middle class Americans, and that is why I cannot support it.

“I am releasing my own plan today because I believe that there is a better way to achieve our goal – one that protects the poor and the middle-class.

“Lower and middle class Americans did not cause the deficit.

“Just ten years ago the federal budget was generating a surplus as far as the eye could see. That surplus was turned into a deficit due to massive tax cuts – mainly to wealthy Americans; two wars paid for by borrowed money; and a major recession caused by the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks.

“Over the last decade the incomes of middle class Americans have actually shrunk, while those of the wealthiest two percent of the population have exploded.

“The middle class did not benefit from the Republican economic policies that led to the current deficit – they were the victims – they should not be called upon to pick up the tab.

“Fixing the Federal deficit is not an end in itself. The goal of budget policy should be to assure long-term, widely shared economic growth. Economic growth is not just good for businesses and families – it will reduce the deficit. Sustained, long-term economic growth requires that we end the trend of concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of the rich and less and less in the hands of a middle class that can then afford to buy the products and services that will sustain economic growth.

“The proposals included in this plan are aimed at bringing the federal deficit under control using policies that will put Americans back to work and strengthen middle class incomes: the foundation of long-term economic growth.


The Schakowsky plan is based on five key elements:

1) Increased economic stimulus to spur growth in the immediate term

· Provide $200 billion to invest over the next two years in measures to create jobs and spur economic growth, including passing the Local Jobs for America Act; and funding for education and law enforcement; Unemployment Insurance, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program extensions; and infrastructure.

· Adopt the President’s proposals to eliminate overseas tax havens and incentives for outsourcing


2) Smart, targeted spending cuts

· Non-Defense Discretionary – $7.55 billion in savings through increased efficiency and cuts to programs that benefit large corporations that don’t need assistance.

· Defense Discretionary – $110.7 billion in cuts from the 2015 defense budget, including efficiency savings, reducing our troop levels, cutting weapons systems we don’t need, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military.

3) Mandatory spending cuts

* Health Care – at least $31.2 billion in savings by implementing measures to bring down the cost of health care to the federal government and lower health care inflation overall.
* Other – $7.7 billion in savings by cutting agriculture subsidies in half, and redistributing federal support to offer greater benefits to small family farms reduce subsidies to large corporate agribusiness.

4) Reductions in tax expenditures

* Raise $132.2 billion by closing tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

5) Increases in revenues

* Raise $144.6 billion in revenue through progressive reforms to the estate tax, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, and enacting a cap and trade proposal that includes protections for lower-income people.
* Enact President Obama’s budget proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 brackets expire and return to 2009 estate tax levels.
* Non-tax revenue – raise $7 billion by addressing places where the private sector is currently under-paying.


On Social Security

Schakowsky:

“There is a better way than the Simpson-Bowles proposal – which relies heavily on benefit cuts instead of revenue increases.

“Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Addressing the Social Security issue as part of the deficit question is like attacking Iraq to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks – there is simply no relationship between the two and attempting to conflate them does a grave disservice to America’s seniors.

“Taking money from Social Security retirees whose average total income is $18,000 per year and average benefit is $14,000 ($12,000 for women) is simply wrong. It places them at fiscal risk and hurts the economy because they will be unable to purchase the goods they need. Americans in poll after poll have indicated their opposition to benefit cuts – particularly at a time when Wall Street bankers are making record bonuses.


The Schakowsky alternative does not contain any cuts to Social Security.

* It ensures long-term solvency to Social Security by eliminating the wage cap on the employer side and raising it to 90% on the employee side, applying FICA to all wage income below the cap, and establishing a modest legacy tax on wealthier Americans.
* Surplus funding that can be used to improve the extremely-modest benefits that are now provided.

[sabrina 1]

10. Hi suffragette!

:hi:

Thank you for those links. She is, airc, the only Progressive on the Commission.

I do remember her releasing her plan, but then heard nothing more about it.

I would love to hear other members of that Commission say this:

“Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Addressing the Social Security issue as part of the deficit question is like attacking Iraq to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks – there is simply no relationship between the two and attempting to conflate them does a grave disservice to America’s seniors.

“Taking money from Social Security retirees whose average total income is $18,000 per year and average benefit is $14,000 ($12,000 for women) is simply wrong. It places them at fiscal risk and hurts the economy because they will be unable to purchase the goods they need. Americans in poll after poll have indicated their opposition to benefit cuts – particularly at a time when Wall Street bankers are making record bonuses.


The Schakowsky alternative does not contain any cuts to Social Security.

They deliberately avoid telling this to the public and it cannot be said often enough. That SS has nothing to do with the deficit.

I like this also:

* Raise $132.2 billion by closing tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

This seems like such a simple thing to do. And I know it would be hugely popular with the public. Why are we paying people to send jobs overseas?

And I would add, end subsidies to the Oil Corps. They have shown so much profit that it boggles the mind that this has not already happened.

Your post would make a good OP as I'm not sure that many people even know about her proposals, so thanks again for posting them :-)

[suffragette]

23. I have posted on this quite a bit

The one sensible thing to come from that Commission and not a peep of support for it from leadership.
At least she was there to vote against the crap that was being put forward as "The Plan."

[sabrina 1]

37. Yes, interesting how she has been ignored.

But the scary 'SS is the cause of all our problems' gets plenty of coverage. I posted a few OPs on the Commission, who was on it etc. I didn't have much faith in what they would for the people once I saw who they were.

The real shocker was seeing people like Grover Norquist 'advising' the panel. Not much hope from such a Commission in terms of actually addressing the real causes of the problems we have.

[somone]

6. The solution is obvious

Tax the rich, and get our troops out of those shitholes

[SlimJimmy]

7. So let's be absolutely clear.

You are in favor of raising the taxes on ALL income levels to pre-Bush* levels while inflation continues to climb and we are in a deep recession.

You are in favor of adding untold billions to the already 1.7 TRILLION dollar deficit, and 16 TRILLION dollar debt in a third bite at a twice failed stimulus.

You are in favor of putting literally hundreds of thousands of government workers, contractors, and subsidiary businesses out of work, while in the midst of a deep recession.

And you are in favor of doing almost nothing about the escalating costs of SS, medicare, and medicaid.

Increase SS benefits to help stimulate the economy.
* Lift or raise the cap on SS
* Hold an emergency session of Congress to end the Bush Cuts now.
* Corps who outsource jobs should pay higher taxes.
* End the wars as quickly as possible
* Cut the Pentagon budget in half at least.
* Don't even think about cutting SS, Medicare or Medicaid.

[sabrina 1]

9. Explain how ending the wars, raising taxes on the wealthy

Cutting the Pentagon Budget, and leaving SS which has zero to do with the debt, alone?

I'm not following your logic.

[SlimJimmy]

13. 1. How many people work in defense, and how many hundreds of

thousands more supply them? Shall we cut all those jobs?

2. You said Bush* tax cuts without specifying who.

3. And for the record, SS is operating at a loss starting this year - according to the CBO. It is no longer in "surplus".

I live in the real world where these budget decisions have consequences. For example. Cutting defense in half "sounds" good, but it will have disastrous 2nd and 3rd order consequences.

[sabrina 1]

16. First, SS did still have a surplus last year, as it doesn't just

depend on one source as income. So if you are talking about SS tax alone, that may be true, but it has three sources of income, which is why last year, it still showed a surplus.

Bush Tax cuts, see suffragette's post above. The proposal from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) who is on the Deficit Commission.

As for the losing jobs in defense, the Pentagon, once the wars are ended, would not need to lose jobs even if that budget was cut in half. End the wars, I think you missed that.

And we cannot remain a war economy forever, what do you suggest since these wars are a huge CAUSE of the problem.

I live in the real world also, and it's a pretty bad place to be for many Americans. But cutting SS is certainly not a solution.

Creating jobs HERE by taking way the incentive to send them overseas, would be a start in fixing any shortfall in SS. But since there IS a surplus, SS can withstand that for quite a while without any cuts.

[SlimJimmy]

20. So you think ending the wars will automatically cut defense by half?

Not even close. The two wars combined account for about 10-15 billion per year. Do you really think we have a 20-30 billion per year defense budget? As I said, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost.

And you think 30 billion per year is a HUGE cause of the problem? Here's what I and many others think. Spending 1.7 trillion a year more than we have for the next ten years is MORE of a problem - and it needs to be addressed right now. You want to end the wars and bring the troops home? I'm with you. But it won't save nearly the amount that you seem to think it will.

[sabrina 1]

22. Did you read the article in the OP?

And suffragette's post #5 which has the proposals put forth by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)?

Of course just doing that won't be enough, which is why I listed some other things. But it is generally agreed by many economists, that the Bush Tax Cuts which created no jobs as they were supposed to over the ten years since they started, cost this country over 2 trillion dollars. And the extension will cost billions more.

To say that taking money away from people on SS will solve it is just plain wrong. That fund belongs to the people who paid into it and is a totally separate fund from the Fed. budget. So, it should not even be mentioned in any discussion about the Federal Deficit, at all.

The pentagon budget, outside of the wars, is so bloated and there is so much waste, that as I said, it could be cut in half and it would still be one of the biggest military budgets in the world.

[SlimJimmy]

33. You are talking in sound bites and not reality. Cutting the defense budget by half

would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. When a budget is cut, the first thing to go is jobs. That is a recipe for disaster in a recession.

[sabrina 1]

11. And, I forgot to ask, what 'escalating costs of SS'?

The SS fund has a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars. Boomers have paid for their retirement. And that surplus will double by 2023 even without doing much and under the current bad economy. If the economy recovers, it will be even better.

[SlimJimmy]

34. There is no surplus. The CBO says SS is in the red starting this year. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

36. There is a surplus.

The fact that that fund has been raided, does not mean there is no surplus. It means that Congress must find a way to make those who raided it, pay it back. That's like telling someone who was robbed 'too bad, you're out of luck' expecially when there is a means of retrieving that money.

SS Surplus

Social Security is far from bankrupt, with a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus. The federal government has borrowed most of that surplus to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Wall Street bank bailouts, and the Bush-era tax cuts. The government is now wondering how to pay back the loan – it's not their money – it belongs to Social Security.

As the baby boomers retire, Social Security will eventually have to pay out more than it takes in. Social Security has been getting ready for this since 1983, by paying higher payroll contributions in order to increase the Trust Fund. Social Security has been saving up for the boomers, and it has the funds to pay all promised benefits for many years to come.


"If Congress cuts benefits by raising the retirement age or by reducing the amount paid to beneficiaries, it amounts to stealing our money. It's like the bank telling you that even though you deposited $100 into your saving account, they're only going to give you $80 back," stated Kate Birnbryer White, Executive Director of Elder Law of Michigan. "Social Security is the people's savings account for retirement, not monopoly money to solve other national problems."

Elder Law of Michigan, Inc. - www.elderlawofmi.org

Democrats need to fight the efforts of the thieves to keep the money they 'borrowed' and if they don't, they will viewed as complicit in the theft.

[SlimJimmy]

39. As I've said REPEATEDLY. There is no surplus, the money is gone. Borrowed, stolen,

hijacked. Call it whatever you want, but the money isn't there. SS is running in the red starting this year. You can scream all you want with your hands in the air. But the facts are what they are.

[sabrina 1]

40. And we know who stole it and we know how to get it back.

THOSE are the facts. Any member of Congress who voted for an extension of the Bush tax cuts, or to fund another war, is an accomplice in the theft of the people's money.

And any Congress that does not start prosecuting Wall St. criminals, is also an accomplice.

They must be forced to do what is right since apparently they do not intend to do it on their own. But what will never be acceptable is that they are not held accountable and that Congress do nothing to get the money from the thieves, NOT from the people they stole it from. In no reality does that make any sense and will be a huge issue in the next election.

[SlimJimmy]

43. Those are the facts as you'd like them to be. You conveniently forgot to add in

900 plus BILLION in stimulus that did little or nothing to grow jobs, and 100's of BILLIONS more wasted at Freddie and Fannie. Plus a bail out of an auto industry that stiffed its shareholders to give away the store to banks and other friends in high political places. As for getting any of that money back - that is fantasy. Who *exactly* is going to force them? Congress? Hell, they're the ones who gave away most of it in the first place (both parties). If you think that getting that money back will be a big deal to the voters in the next election, you are just kidding yourself.

I always hear about the Bush* tax cuts and the wars, but seldom about the others I've listed here. We progressives are hardly squeaky clean when it comes to these matters. I guess looking in the mirror is not all that popular sometimes.

[sabrina 1]

45. Iceland is managing to do it. We could start by taking the advice

the bi-Partisan Senate Committee that has for two years been looking into what caused the economic collapse. They released their report a few weeks ago, stating that they have found evidence of corruption and possible crimes and were referring it to the DOJ.

This is how Iceland did it. They went after their corrupt bankers, did not bail them out despite all the warnings they were given if they did that, arrested their complicit politicians and prosecuted the bankers, and are attempting to retrieve the money stoled from their country.

We could do it, but there has to be the will to do it. Iceland did go throught a difficult period after letting their banks fail, however unlike the other European countries and the US who chose to bail them out, Iceland's economy is now rebounding.

Sometimes you really do have to go catch the bank robbers and find out where they have hidden the money. But you sure won't find it if you don't try.

[SlimJimmy]

46. Good luck with that happening here. Do you really think the banks and

national unions are going to return the money they took from everyday investors for pennies on the dollar? As I said, Congress helped them take it. And how exactly are we going to recover the billions and billions lost at Fannie and Freddie? That's money down a rat hole. It's a mess and a national disgrace that dwarfs what we spent on those unnecessary wars.

[jtown1123]

44. That is wrong. That figure thrown around by AP is just current revenue from payroll

taxes. SS is still in surplus. That figure didn't account interest on bonds.

[SlimJimmy]

47. It comes from CBO. See link.

Social Security's $2.5 trillion surplus

Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 — unless Congress acts in the meantime. At that point, Social Security would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay out about 78 percent of benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment with interest.

And where exactly is the treasury going to get the interest from, thin air? Maybe the fed will just print more money to cover it? To date, not a single dime has been repaid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41293592/ns/politics-more_politics/t/social-security-fund-will-be-drained/

[MrDiaz]

12. BUSH TAX CUTS?

I thought they were going to expire. Then the democratic congress extended them, and then it was signed by President Obama. They should now be called Obama's Tax Cuts. Just sayin...

[sabrina 1]

14. If what we are being told is true, and things are so bad that

they are even considering cutting SS and Medicare, such a state of emergency requires that those areas, such as the Bush Tax Cuts, now adding more to the deficit, be addressed immediately. Why can the president not go the people and put the Repubicans in a corner by telling them that regrettable though it is, they must end those cuts and he is calling on all members of Congress to 'do the right thing'. Make it an Election issue, let the Republicans try to explain why the elderly and disabled should be targeted, while Republicans protect the wealthy.

They certainly have no problem doing exactly that when it comes to the poor.

[FarLeftFist]

24. You don't recall the republiCons holding the middle class tax cuts hostage?!

[sabrina 1]

25. Yes, I do. But here's my question.

Why did the democrats take this issue off the table until after the election?

Before the election they had a majority, not to mention that ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would have been such a hugely popular issue for them, it might have won them the election.

Before the election also, the Republicans would have been trashed for not wanting to extend unemployment or threatening to raise taxes on the middle class while refusing to raise them on the rich.

But when they announced that they were leaving this issue until AFTER the election, many people just assumed it was nothing more than a ploy and predicted an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, that a deal had been made. That angered many people with the democrats as we are not stupid. Trying to use the 'we don't have a majority' excuse, was almost funny since everyone knew it had been their choice to wait until they did not have the majority.

Either they are very bad strategists, or they are part of the problem ~

[FarLeftFist]

27. Preach it sister!

[kentuck]

18. What about the economic downturn?

Don't you want to give him credit for that also?? :-)

[PhillySane]

26. No shit.

Is this a revelation? It's only been 10 fucking years.

[QuintanarooBoy]

29. This needs to be Shouted from Rooftops!

Recced. I wish I could rec it x100

[fascisthunter]

38. and Yet we Extend Tax Breaks for the Wealthy Class

and so we must kill social programs helping the least amongst us. Sick...

[sabrina 1]

41. I hope Democrats are no going to do that, I hope they are ready

to fight very hard so block any effort by Republicans to cut those programs in any way.

[fascisthunter]

42. Me too Sabrina

all we can do is wait and see, but for now we have to pressure them!

[nc4bo]

48. So sorry I'm too late to Rec. nt