Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFactcheck.org Misleads to Accuse Sanders of Misleading
And the establishment attacks keep on coming!Sen. Bernie Sanders repeats a Democratic talking point in saying that Social Security hasnt contributed one penny or one nickel to the deficit. In fact, it contributed $73 billion to the deficit in 2014.
That depends on whether you think Social Security is government program funded on a year to year basis or a program we all pay into in order to receive payments later.
Sanders is talking about whats called the on-budget deficit, while Social Security is considered an off-budget program. But in terms of actual federal revenue and outlays, and borrowing, Social Security is contributing to yearly deficits and has been since 2010. Sanders himself has considered Social Security to be a part of the overall budget: On his Senate website, he includes raising the income cap on Social Security taxes as one way to reduce the deficit.
Social Security adds to the unified deficit, which is the deficit we almost all discuss all the time, Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in an email interview. It does so because we spend a lot more on Social Security benefits than we raise in payroll tax and other related revenue.
Goldwein told us that Sanders statement contains a kernel of truth in that Social Security technically cant run a debt. That means that any [yearly] deficits its running now can only legally be paid because it was running surpluses in the past, he says. But the government spent the surplus on other things. It owes Social Security the money, which is held in the form of Treasury securities. In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.
If you consider Social Security just another on budget government program where you tax some people each year to pay out other people the same year, what then is the rationale for regressive FICA taxation? Just to make sure the rich pay a much lower percentage of their income for Social Security than the rest of us do?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 589 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Factcheck.org Misleads to Accuse Sanders of Misleading (Original Post)
mhatrw
Oct 2015
OP
Factcheck commonly does this, change the wording of whomever is speaking and then
uponit7771
Oct 2015
#1
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)1. Factcheck commonly does this, change the wording of whomever is speaking and then
... argues against their own changes to give a negative rating.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)2. The money shot.
Goldwein told us that Sanders statement contains a kernel of truth in that Social Security technically cant run a debt. That means that any deficits its running now can only legally be paid because it was running surpluses in the past, he says. But the government spent the surplus on other things. It owes Social Security the money, which is held in the form of Treasury securities. In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.
Because the government stole from SS for other things, 'Factcheck.org' wants to claim it's just another part of the budget.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)4. It's right here
CBOs projections show that Social Securitys balance is expected to grow for several years, but thats because Treasury must credit the trust funds with interest payments on past borrowing. The government will have to either increase taxes, cut spending or borrow from the public to pay that interest that it owes to itself.
We haven't been paying the interest on money borrowed from SS and other federal retirement funds. Bush stopped paying intergovernmental interest payments in 2003. We pay on paper with treasury notes, which means we are borrowing to pay interest payments.
We haven't been paying the interest on money borrowed from SS and other federal retirement funds. Bush stopped paying intergovernmental interest payments in 2003. We pay on paper with treasury notes, which means we are borrowing to pay interest payments.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)3. I've found fact-checks to be generally disappointing.
When checking statements, they should first decide the "take away" of the statement, then check whether it is effectively true or false.