Comments for FactCheck Gets It Wrong on Social Security and the Deficit at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 7 out of 7 comments http://www.cepr.net Fri, 24 May 2013 20:30:15 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/factcheck-gets-it-wrong-on-social-security-and-the-deficit#comment-7371 Thanks for taking the time to talk about this, I feel fervently about this and I take pleasure in learning about this topic. Please, as you gain information, please update this Article with more information. I have found it very useful[url=http://www.good4shopper.info/louis-vuitton-watches.html]louis vuitton watches replica[/url]. - Jermaine R. Moore Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:51:45 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/factcheck-gets-it-wrong-on-social-security-and-the-deficit#comment-7161 The deficit spending happened when the SS Trust Fund loaned the money to the US General Fund. If the SSTF says "pay us back what you owe us", the General Fund can cut spending or borrow an equivalent amount from another lender. The deficit doesn't increase one bit! The group that holds the IOU for an amount of borrowing simply changes! The moment the government took the loan from Social Security, the debt obligation began, not when they asked for it back. - DollyMadison Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:20:47 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/factcheck-gets-it-wrong-on-social-security-and-the-deficit#comment-7153 Bruce has not carried the accounting through from beginning to end. If one does that, Baker's claim is completely credible. In the end, it is spending more than one takes in that produces a deficit. The source of the funding is not irrelevant in a lot of ways, but when it comes to the issue of the deficit, it is. If Treasury had not borrowed from Social Security when SS was running a surplus, then Treasury would have had to borrow from somebody else. That's because the general fund was in deficit - we spent more than we brought in. That "somebody else" would have needed funds to lend, and the SS Trust would have had funds to led. Would the 3rd party have been "contributing to the deficit" by demanding payment from Treasury? It would certainly be an odd way to describe the situation, but go ahead, those of you who want to. The Social Security Trust would be repaid by the 3rd party. So, unless we decide that abrogating contracts is an OK thing to do, this talk about "contributing to the deficit" is mistaken, because it pretends that the flow of funds between some institutions is different than the flow from others. Treasury borrowed the money because it was in deficit. Treasury needs to pay the money back to keep faith. - kharris Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:20:59 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/factcheck-gets-it-wrong-on-social-security-and-the-deficit#comment-7146 What deficit Dean? The funding deficit? Surely SS is now impacting the funding deficit. I suspect you know that. SS ran a cash deficit for 2010 of 48.9b. Every cent of that had to be funded by Treasury.Every cent of this shows up as in increase in the Debt held by the public, So I'm really nor sure what you are talking about. Possibly you are referring to the federal deficit that is the budget. I suggest you look a bit closer. You will find that in 2010 there was an expense on the budget of $118b. Interest is of course on the budget. Right? So actually SS is contributing TODAY to our two largest problems. It is increasing the debt held by the public at a time when we are already are crowding ourselves out. And it contributes to the budget deficit because of the interest. I say DB is wrong on this one. - Bruce Krasting Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:32:34 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/factcheck-gets-it-wrong-on-social-security-and-the-deficit#comment-7144 An unambiguous answer would require unambiguous knowledge of whether the amount of interest being paid on treasury loans would be the same whether or not SS existed. The government would just need to borrow the money elsewhere if it continued the same other programs with the same revenues. If that is the case then SS has no affect on the deficit. If the lack of the SS surplus would have changed the other programs, then SS does contribute. Factcheck's analysis is wrong by an order of magnitude. Not entirely wrong, but more wrong than right. - Arne Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:59:01 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/factcheck-gets-it-wrong-on-social-security-and-the-deficit#comment-7143 It's not that difficult. When the Federal Government has needs greater than resources it issues debt. When more money comes into Social Security than is needed for benefits, it buys US Treasury debt. According to the CBO, Social Security in 2010 and 2011 ran/will run a surplus around $100 billion and holds an accumulated (about) $2.6 trillion in Treasuries. Therefore, Social Security has loaned money to the rest of the government to help float our budget deficit. What's so difficult about that? - Bob Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:16:08 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/factcheck-gets-it-wrong-on-social-security-and-the-deficit#comment-7142 Factcheck.org wrote: "Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing." That’s not true, except in a very narrow, legalistic sense ... ----- What other sense is when talking about legislation except the law? - Randy Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:59:09 +0100