#liberal as ever
13 messages in this thread
And just how would you do that? Put in the *Constitution* that Social Security
could NEVER be cut? You think this is a good idea, or even a serious one? It
is simply nonsense that the unadorned Amendment would somehow REQUIRE cuts in
SS to balance the budget. That would be the LAST thing to get cut. Do you
think it is *likely* that congresscritters have a collective death wish? That
they WANT 40 MILLION little old people to form an enormous lynch mob and
assault the Capital? If thirty states can get along with a balanced budget
requirement, I don't see why the Federal Government cannot.
I'm not wild about being unable to run even a small deficit in recessions or
emergencies, but if there is one thing the last thirty years have shown, it is
that Congress has all the fiscal discipline of a skid row junky. We run
deficits in GOOD times. This must stop.
-Karl
No, the point is that the amendment as it stands would Constitutionally require
that any year to year SS surplus – rather than being invested in a trust fund
like it's supposed to be – would be used to balance the year to year budget.
The amendment could be worded so that long term trust funds are considered
seperately from the rest of the budget.
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – Warped again?
But that is *exactly* what happens NOW. There IS NO TRUST FUND. Some
government securities are bought, yeah, but what is the difference between
selling securities to ourselves and selling them to the public? *We* still owe
the money. AND WHEN THE SECURITIES GET BOUGHT, THE MONEY FROM THE SALE GOES
RIGHT INTO THE GENERAL FUND. Get it? And the same amount of securities get
sold either way. And when they come due, the money comes right out of our
pockets, just like usual.
BTW, I heard the correct figure for Democratic weasel Senators is actually SIX,
those who had voted for the exact same amendment in prior votes (WITHOUT any
exemption for SS) and now, when it was actually going to pass, changed their
vote.
-Karl
Look, I don't care who said what, my point is that _I_ believe that a trust
fund should be a trust fund, not some gimmick whereby surpluses are used and
owed by the government to itself in whatever form – whether I.O.U.s or the
purchase of securities.
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – Warped again?
Paul,
Your correct on that one…:^)
—Stephen—
===On AutoPilot 1.77–With Intel "All over my desk"===
If you don't care who said what, you oughtn't to get into arguments about
whether the Republicans are just as bad as Democrats with spending. If you
don't know who said and did what, what's the point of arguing about it?
Especially when if you DID know, you wouldn't be arguing. (really evil :-))
Having a trust fund would be nice. But we don't, and never did. So any
argument that the "trust fund" has to be protected were just a lot of hot air.
Even if anyone meant it, which they didn't.
-Karl
NO! I was saying that =I= believe that a trust fund should be a trust fund,
and then you said No, some Democrats voted against that, and then I said,
That's not my point right here, my point right here is just that I, independant
of any Democrats or Republicans, believe that a trust fund should be a trust
fund. You're so dead set on scoring points against Democrats that you're not
even listening to what I'm saying.
>So any argument that the "trust fund" has to be protected were just a lot >of
hot air. Even if anyone meant it, which they didn't. All the fact that we
don't and haven't had a trust fund means is that the people, if they exist, who
want one were outnumbered. Furthermore, seeing that it was a dead issue, they
might have voted for something that used trust money in order to secure votes
on another issue that they felt was more winnable. I know that kind of
maneuvering and compromise is called Eville nowadays, but it's at the heart of
politics.
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – Warped again?
Ah, well, I'm not the only one, since this all started when you said, and I
quote exactly, "Many Democrats are fighting the amendment for a reason that I
think is justified, but not properly explained in the media. Social Security
is a trust fund." So, perhaps you don't remember this now? I understand that
YOU think we should REALLY have a trust fund, really I do. That is not the
point, the point is that you are alone among Democrats in being sincere about
it.
(I do not agree on the trust fund, BTW. It is pretty silly to pretend we have
a "trust fund" when we are running as large a deficit as we are. If SS money
actually went into a "trust fund" we would merely have to borrow it somewhere
else. Wheee, big improvement.)
-Karl
I think there -are- a number of Democrats who believe that a trust fund should
be a trust fund. But I stopped following the debate the day the Senate killed
the amendment, so I don't know what new developements have turned up.
At any rate, I don't think we should be running this kind of deficit now
either. Cyclical economics as I said makes a lot of sense to me, but we have a
huge debt that kind of makes it difficult to actually employ that policy. I
just disagree with the Republicans on what should be cut.
Mr. Zombie – Warped forever!
Actually, the interesting thing about the trust funds is that the government is
not legaly required to repay them. In that way the bonds are different from
debt owned by the public.
-ash
Kyfho
No, no, it's "trust funds," not trust funds. A trust fund is a real thing,
with legal obligations. "Trust funds" are what we have. <G>
-Karl
I was including the Aviation and Highway "trust funds".
-ash
Kyfho
Oh, that's all right then. (snicker)
-Karl