Obama ALREADY HAS CUT Social Security

[grahamhgreen]

By enacting the FICA tax holiday, Obama has reduced the solvency of SS:

"Moreover, this payroll tax cut plan would reduce Social Security’s tax revenues by around $710 billion over the next 10 years. If made permanent, the Obama tax cut would increase Social Security’s long-term deficit by almost 60% and push the program into insolvency in 2034, versus 2041 under current projections." http://andrewgbiggs.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

That, IMHO, is a cut.

And it's a shame, if I could pay more into SS and get more guaranteed benefits, I would. In fact, this should be on the table: allow people to voluntarily put their 401K into SS in exchange for greater benefits.

Better that than gamble in the stock exchanges, IMHO.

[msongs]

1. lol the total destruction of social security is a corporate goal with DC going along nt

[ProSense]

2. It's not a cut

not even by a stretch of the imagination.

Robert Kuttner made a similar proposal

<...>

Six. Propose a six month tax holiday for payroll taxes. Ask for the Republicans' support. This would provide direct tax relief to working people and lower the cost of creating jobs. It would provide more of a tonic to the economy and more practical help to American families than any of the Republicans' proposed tax cuts. Make up the loss to the Social Security trust funds with a temporary surtax on people making over $10 million a year.

<...>

The difference is that President Obama's tax holiday is funded by the general fund, whereas Kuttner proposed a surtax on the rich.

[Lasher]

5. "...tax holiday is funded by the general fund..."

Exactly how is that going to work? I'd be grateful for a link to a credible source.

[laconicsax]

6. Isn't there a statute prohibiting use of the general fund for socian security? n/t

[Lasher]

45. I'm not sure.

But I believe Obama's tax cut bill, being another statute, could override such a provision.

[MrMickeysMom]

56. YES THERE IS...

The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990... Section 13301:

"Not withstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (e.g. social security trust fund) and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the Congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985"

My reference, Ravi Batra, in "Greenspan's Fraud" describes this as turning out to be a toothless gesture and admits that ever since November 5, 1990, the day the president affixed his autograph on the Budget Enforcement Act, the lawmakers have been breaking the law with impunity, because every year the Social Security surplus has been used and spent in the federal budget except 1999 and 2000, when the general budget recorded a tiny surplus on its own.

[laconicsax]

58. Thank you.

Kinda throws some cold water on the whole, "fund the cuts with the general fund" argument, doesn't it?

[MrMickeysMom]

60. Yes it certainly does...

Yet, when I brought this up to Tim Murphy (18th congressional district, PA) total silence on the matter. I wouldn't have understood this, had I not been for a book which fortunately my son gave me Thanksgiving. He'd been talking about Batra for a while... Great present.

So many laws are purposely ignored because Congress's lack of intestinal fortitude. I'm seriously fucking pissed off about this. We fucking pay into this and yet over and over and over again they pull this shit. I'll bet half of these elected officials haven't a clue to it, either.

[Still a Democrat]

8. The general fund already owes trillions to SS

This would be added to the obligation.

[ProSense]

15. Here

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds Receipts (second table)

[Lasher]

28. I see nothing there to support your claim.

The tables only account for years up to 2009. It's hard to imagine how they could account for anything happening this year.

[ProSense]

30. Do you see transfers?

That's exactly how it happens. The actual language from the bill in posted below.

It happens, frequently.

[Lasher]

37. That's quite a stretch.

From 'transfers occur' to "...tax holiday is funded by the general fund..."

But never mind. I have seen the meaningful discussion is going on downthread.

[ProSense]

38. No, it's not a stretch.

Is there a different general fund, and are transfers made in some other way?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

97. A surtax on the rich would be a better choice, back to the taxes of the Greatest Generation

[RB TexLa]

3. You can do that in a way. Invest in your 401k and suspend your SS payments when you get to

retirement age, use your 401k money for income and for every year you do, SS gives you a 6% increase in benefits.

[grahamhgreen]

34. I did not know that.

I will do that, although I'd like to pay more now.

[Common Sense Party]

47. All that poster is saying is don't take early SS benefits at age 62.

Take them at your regular retirement age, at age 66 and howveer many months you're supposed to be.

For every year before that regular start date you start taking benefits, your check is reduced by about 7% or so.

[RB TexLa]

57. No, you can suspend your benefits at your retirement age and they will add 6% for each year

you have the payments suspended.

[Common Sense Party]

59. Oh, yeah. I had forgotten about that.

I don't know too many who do that--most of the 401k participants I know want to get their money at age 62, even though the check is reduced dramatically.

But you're completely right, of course.

[Common Sense Party]

4. Would you also then allow people to voluntarily reduce their SS

contributions in exchange for fewer benefits?

[grahamhgreen]

33. No.

[Common Sense Party]

48. Why not?

You want to put in more and take more out.

Some may want to put in less and take less out.

Why should you get it your way and they not get it their way?

[Statistical]

51. SS payout is progressive.

People would be wise to reduce contribution to maximize their return. Doing some would cause SS to collapse. Currently rich get much lower return and that "subsidizes" the higher returns for the poor. Without that method SS would collapse. Nobody with math skills and income >$55,000 would opt to not minimize their contributions.

For example SS pays a benefit equal to:
90% of your wages up to $9,132 annually
32% of your wages over $9,132 and less than $55,032
15% of your wages over $55,032 and the cap.

At a minimum people would cut their contribution to below the $55K theshold, many would cut it even further.

[Common Sense Party]

53. Yes, I knew that...I was playing devil's advocate.

Some people incorrectly look at SS as a savings vehicle: I'll put in x, I'll get back x plus interest, and if I put in 2x, then I'll get back 2x plus interest.

It doesn't work that way. It can't work that way.

[Statistical]

55. I gotcha.

Increasing SS contribution is a horrible return because of the progressive payout. If one wants a larger guaranteed check it would be better to take that extra money (say 5% of gross pay) put it into an IRA. The invest it conservatively (mostly bonds and treasuries). At retirement use those funds to purchase an annuity. Much higher ROI.

[jaxx]

7. The tax holiday only lasts one year, not ten.

Employees pay 2% less for one year and employers still pay the full amount.


http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2010/12/2011-employee-2-payroll-tax-cut-for-social-security-and-medicare-making-work-pay-credit-not-extended.html

[Still a Democrat]

10. But ten makes a bigger number

:)

[Statistical]

29. Over 10,000 years it would cost $1.2 quadrillion dollars.

More than value of all the assets in the world. See how irresponsible Obama is.

[Still a Democrat]

35. lmao

You're understanding dead-ender math pretty well. I oughta steal that and make it a thread.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. "Temporary" tax cuts have a way of becoming permanent.

And do you SERIOUSLY think that President Obama will allow the payroll holiday to go away in 2012? An election year where his opponent can hammer him nonstop with "he raised your taxes!"?

[jaxx]

19. Yep.

Do you think they'll put another 13 months of unemployment on there too?

[Hello_Kitty]

25. If unemployment is still bad, yeah, they will.

And they'll extend the payroll holiday again.

[Enthusiast]

74. Yeah, it will be repealed after a year.

It will expire. Right.

[Statistical]

9. BS. The equivalent amount was transfered from general fund.

[Lasher]

11. Please help me understand how that occurred.

I'd appreciate a link to a credible source.

[BzaDem]

17. Here is the actual legislative language from the enrolled bill, signed by Obama.

"(1) TRANSFERS TO FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSUR-
ANCE TRUST FUND.—There are hereby appropriated to the Fed- eral Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Dis- ability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4853:

[Hello_Kitty]

22. And what programs will that money be coming out of?

[BzaDem]

24. Nothing. You can't point to me the specific language in the bill that cuts a single program

because it doesn't exist. Not a single program will be cut by one penny due to this bill.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. So they're just going to add it to the deficit?

And make no mistake, the payroll holiday will be extended beyond this year. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/tax-cut-deal-a-hidden-thr_n_793983.html

[Statistical]

36. Yes although money is fungible you can't say which dollars add to the deficit.

The government simply does this.

Take all programs, all spending, all outlays. Add that up: total federal expenditures.

Take all revenue (income tax, tarriffs, estate tax, corporate tax, excise tax, etc). Add that up: total federal revenue.

Expenses - Revenue = Deficit. Treasury issues new bonds equal to the deficit to balance the books.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. So when Senator Aqua Buddha holds the debt ceiling hostage because of "the deficit" .

What types of programs will be cut to accede to his demands? Remembering, of course, that he and his cohort will be keenly interested in continuing all tax cuts, including the payroll holiday.

[Statistical]

40. We will see won't we. The treasury will begin suspending payments.

It also keeps about $400 mil in cash on the books to allow it flexibility in paring down expenditures.

Boner can be interest all he wants it takes 60 votes in the Senate to issue a new budget so it will require at least some compromise. Of course the Democrats may simply fold like a house of cards.

[BzaDem]

41. That has NOTHING to do with the bill AT ALL. Even without the bill, the debt ceiling will be hit

except in April, instead of March.

The entire POINT of stimulus is to add to the deficit.

[Hello_Kitty]

61. Until the GOP makes it about it.

They're counting on average Americans having no idea what contributes to the deficit and debt. They'll raise a big fuss about the deficit and debt, as if they are the same thing, and will get concessions from the Dems to get the debt ceiling raised. I predict the poor will pay on many levels for this payroll holiday.

[BzaDem]

63. They will "raise a big fuss" REGARDLESS of the payroll tax holiday. The holiday does NOTHING

to hurt SS.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. The holiday adds to the deficit.

And it will be used to cut federal programs that help the poor.

[BzaDem]

68. Yes, it adds to the deficit. No, it will not cause any cuts to be greater or less than they would

have been otherwise, just like the Stimulus will not cause any cuts to be greater or less than they would otherwise. You repeating a false statement over and over does not make it true.

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Until it becomes true.

When the GOP uses the deficit and the debt ceiling to push for austerity measures, with the support of several Dems in Congress and, eventually, the White House.

[Enthusiast]

75. Exactly nt

[Statistical]

81. Even without payroll tax holiday we would hit the debt ceiling this fiscal year.

We are deficit spending at a rate of about $100B per month. The debt ceiling will be hit within next 3-6 months. Without the payroll tax holiday we would still hit the debt ceiling.

[Lasher]

49. OK, so here's my take:

There will be less payroll tax revenue going into the Social Security trust fund. But the general fund will make up for this by giving (not selling) treasury bonds to the trust fund to make up the difference. The general fund will be deprived of revenue it would otherwise have received by selling (not giving) treasury bonds to the trust fund. The trust fund will continue to grow, however, as they would have if the payroll tax cut had not been initiated.

I'm OK with that. Is this interpretation consistent with your understanding?

[Hello_Kitty]

62. And what will be cut to allow the general fund to "give" revenue to the SS fund?

Since Senator Aqua Buddha et al will demand their pound of flesh?

[BzaDem]

64. Nothing. Senators will demand whatever pounds of flesh they want regardless of the holiday. n/t

[Lasher]

66. The general fund will be short about $100 billion this year on account of the payroll tax cut.

According to this OP, that is. This can be accounted for by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or borrowing. In answer to your question, I'm going to guess that borrowing will make up the $100 billion difference.

For a longer term solution to our deficits, I believe our social programs like Social Security and Medicare will be slashed. There are those who have a very deliberate intention that the trust fund bonds will never be redeemed by the general fund, and this is the way they will try to fulfill that objective. I do not hold such people in high esteem.

[Statistical]

26. None.

The government allocates all funding for all programs and then borrows any money in excess of receipts.

[grahamhgreen]

92. How will the money be paid back? When will the transfer of funds be made?

If the money comes from SS, it would seem to me that we still have the same issue of reducing it's solvency.

I would imagine that since The general fund already owes SS money, they will just cancel these two debts out and then we are back where we started.

[Exilednight]

12. No, it was just added to the debt of the general fund. As noted above, the general fund

already owes massive amounts of monies to the SS fund.

[BzaDem]

20. Actually, actual cash is being appropriated to the trust fund to make up the difference.

Read the bill.

"(1) TRANSFERS TO FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSUR-
ANCE TRUST FUND.—There are hereby appropriated to the Fed- eral Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Dis- ability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the pre- ceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4853enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4853enr.pdf

[Statistical]

23. Thanks for the cite. I bookmarked it since this bogus myth comes up at least once a week.

Maybe DU can add some stickied threads at the top of the forum of routinely debunked myths.

[Exilednight]

46. Actual cash that we are borrowing. It's a shell game.

[BzaDem]

50. Of course we are borrowing. That is THE POINT of stimulus. It wouldn't be stimulus if it weren't

borrowing.

The point is it does not negatively affect Social Security in the slightest bit.

[Statistical]

52. I am convinced 90% of people don't get this concept BzaDem.

They seem to think you could be stimulative by simply increasing govt spending and increasing taxes to pay for it. They haven't looked at where is that money coming from.

Stimulus = deficit spending. It would be nice though if our govt balanced the budget during the good years so we could really pour on the stimulus in the bad year.

[Hello_Kitty]

70. We do get it.

We just understand that some types of stimulus are red meat for conservatives to demand equal and opposite spending cuts. They never want to balance defense spending. They always want to offset anything that appears to be going to people.

[Exilednight]

76. It does negatively affect social security. Every dollar we borrow, or

print out of thin air, makes the dollars going into social security less valuable.

There was a way to prevent this, Obama just didn't have the guts to do it. He could of said no to the top 2% of income earners and that would of offset the need to for a 2% payroll tax holiday.

And here's the part that many supporters of this plan don't get: This tax holiday did nothing to stimulate the economy, nor will it do anything to help us out further down the road. In fact, this decision is actually harmful to our long term economic health.

For a guy who is suppose to be the smartest guy in the room, he made a really stupid decision.

[Statistical]

85. Borrowing isn't inflationary. It is merely a transfer of wealth.

"For a guy who is suppose to be the smartest guy in the room, he made a really stupid decision."
No he just isn't operating on false assumptions.

[Exilednight]

87. Borrowing does lead to inflation. When you circulate more money than you actually have

that is a root cause of inflation. It doesn't matter whether you borrow the money or print it out of thin air.

And let's be honest, one of the offsetting keys to this was the decision of the Fed to create $600 billion dollars out of thin air.

[Statistical]

88. No.

Fractional banking is inflationary because it creates money out of thin air. The actual act of lending isn't inflationary. Now in traditional fractional banking a bank issues more loans than it has in deposits. It isn't the loan that is inflationary it is the fact the bank made money out of "thin air". The amount of inflation is not related to the amount of loans but the difference between loans and deposits (the amount of money "created" or more technically the increase in the monetary supply).

When the Treasury issues debt there in no increase in monetary supply. They take $1 in cash and issue $1 in bonds. A 1:1 relationship and no inflation.

"circulating" money isn't inflationary. If the money supply isn't increasing (and the issuance of debt doesn't change size of monetary supply) there is no inflationary pressure. Technically inflation is when monetary supply is growing faster than aggregate output in growing. Deflation is when monetary supply is growing slower than aggregate output is growing.

The fed decision to introduce quantitative easing (which is potentially inflationary if we ever get enough traction in the economy) happened a long time prior to this bill.

[grahamhgreen]

98. This is a very good point, however

how will the money be paid back? And When will the transfer of funds be made?

If the money comes from SS, it would seem to me that we still have the same issue of reducing it's solvency.

I would imagine that since the general fund already owes SS money, they will just cancel these two debts out and then we are back where we started, SS having less money than it did before.

[spanone]

13. yes and he started another war in china...and friday we're invading iceland

[upi402]

14. Good point

Camel's nose under the tent... first blood.

Corporate Dems are allowed to play cuz they can do what Repugs would never get away with. -Clinton's NAFTA, GATT, Telecommunications Act etc

[BzaDem]

18. This is absolutely false. 120 billion is being transferred from the general fund to the trust fund.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4853enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4853enr.pdf

"(1) TRANSFERS TO FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE TRUST FUND.—There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the pre- ceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted."

[Kalun D]

65. So now it's funded by borrowing

Instead of coming directly from tax revenue

so now they can say it's not self supporting

the repugs have been trying to do this for decades

it took the traitor from Chicago to finally git r done.

thank you Betrayal Obama

[grahamhgreen]

101. Does this money ever have to be paid back?

[dflprincess]

21. He didn't cut it

but he's put it at risk by making it rely on a general fund that's already way in the red.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. It's a setup for cuts

But not actually a cut.

Fear. Not. Cuts will come.

[Octafish]

31. What about the COLA? Didn't he freeze that?

Gas is $3.25 a gallon. Mom's check comes in at what looks like the same rate as last year.

Hmmm. Maybe that's why the consumer price index always shows a tiny yearly uptick, despite what my own two eyes tell me.

Gee. Who knew the same people who use that number on which to base payments also are the same people who save money by keeping that yearly outlay down -- money they use for war or whatever boondoggle kicks them back a buck.

[Statistical]

42. Obama didn't do anything. COLA is based on CPI-W.

Same formula for last 30+ years.

While there was no COLA for 2009 & 2010 there was a COLA of 5.8% in 2008. Prices haven't exceeded the peak prices of 2008 which are already priced into SS checks.

SS checks are 31% higher than in 2000.

[tammywammy]

43. He didn't freeze COLA

COLA is tied to CPI and has been for many many years. CPI needs to go higher than it was in 2008, it dropped in 2009 and while it's gone up in the last year it's still not higher than it was in 2008. When CPI drops Social Security isn't adjusted downward, but it cannot go up until CPI reaches the previous peak.

[hootinholler]

44. But the CPI was adjusted to remove those volatile costs.

IIRC that happened either Late Bill or early W. There were some other things besides energy costs that were also adjusted out.

-Hoot

[Exilednight]

78. The other one was food prices.

Which is really stupid. Two of the major adjusters in finances, and basic survival, have been removed from the formula.

[Statistical]

82. No they haven't. CPI-W includes both energy and food prices.

[Exilednight]

83. Then explain to me how the CPI-W went up when you include

fuel and food, but there was no COLA increase.

From the bureau of labor statistics:

The energy index increased in December. The gasoline index rose
sharply and accounted for about 80 percent of the all items
seasonally adjusted increase. The household energy index, which
declined in November, increased as well. The food index increased
slightly in December, with the fruits and vegetables index rising
notably.

The index for all items less food and energy also rose in December.
An increase in the shelter index accounted for about 60 percent of
the rise, and the indexes for airline fares, medical care and apparel
rose as well. These increases more than offset declines in the
indexes for communication, recreation, and household furnishings and
operations.

[Statistical]

84. Because there was a 5.8% COLA increase in 2008.

So SS checks are reflecting "2008 prices".

CPI-W then DECLINED in 2009, however checks weren't reduced.
CPI-W then INCREASE in 2010 but not enough to fully offset the decline in 2009.

CPI-W is still below the 2008 peak which is reflected in SS checks.

If SS checks perfectly tracked CPI-W then seniors would have seen checks decrease in 2009. However the law never allows negative COLA. Still CPI-W is still below the 2008 peak. When CPI-W is higher than the peak of 2008 (which is what COLA is "baked" into SS checks) then SS will get an increase.

A real world example:
Gas prices hit $4 in 2008 (reflected in 2008 CPI-W). They then fell to almost $2.00 in 2009. Gas prices then rose again in 2010 to $3.00. So while gas prices have rose they still aren't as expensive as they were in 2008.

[Exilednight]

86. Ummm, CPI ended at 204 in 2008, but started at 206. It rose to 211 in 2009

and 2010 end of year is still undetermined, but Novembers number was at 214.

[Statistical]

90. I am not sure what you are looking at. Link

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/cpiw.html

CPI-W peaked at 216.304 in June 2008. It fell to a low of 204.813 before recovering to 214.750 in November 2010.

Here it is graphically


Now one clarification. SSA COLA is based on the Q3 CPI-W change from prior year.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/avgcpi.html

So
2006: 199.067
2007: 203.596 - 2.3% COLA increase (203.596/199.067)
2008: 215.495 - 5.8% COLA increase (215.495/203.596)
2009: 211.001 - no COLA increase (protected from COLA decrease)
2010: 214.136 - no COLA increase

Now in 2010 CPI-W indicates 1.4% inflation however since SS checks weren't decreased in 2009 they still reflect 2008 CPI-W (215.495). Technically it would be more accurate to have SS COLA both increase and decrease. I think you can see why the govt doesn't do that. Of course there is no free lunch. Since checks didn't decrease in 2008 they didn't increase in 2009 (due to 2009 inflation was less than 2008 deflation).

When CPI-W exceeds 215.495 there will be a COLA increase and the amount of the increase will be the new CPI-W exceeds 215.495.

Say for 2011 Q3 CPI-W is:
217.00 that would be a COLA increase of 0.7% (217.00 / 215.495)
220.00 that would be a COLA increase of 2.1% (220.00 / 215.495)

[katnapped]

77. But at least you can get a DEE VEE DEE player cheap!

And that's what's REALLY important! :sarcasm:

[jwirr]

54. And by ending the COLA.

[MilesColtrane]

69. Fresh, steaming horseshit

[Enthusiast]

72. K&R That is why Obama's

agreement with the Republicans on the FICA tax holiday and extending the tax cuts for the wealthy was a betrayal of the American working people. I can't forgive him for that betrayal.

[onenote]

79. what exactly does a 2008 blog from a Cato institute AEI toady have to do with the impact of the FICA

cut?

And while I'm asking questions, exactly how is the $710 billion over ten years calculated since the cut only is for one year? What level of revenues does it assume would be coming in otherwise? Its a payroll tax, right? So if employment drops, the amount of payroll taxes collected drops. If employment increases, the amount of payroll taxes collected increases. How does this estimate account for changes in employment over the next ten years?

[grahamhgreen]

100. If the FICA tax cut is reducing

SS income, even for a year, then the solvency period of SS will decrease to some degree.

The way out of this, of course, is what Obama ran on - increasing the cap on SS. Although, as you point out, increasing employment or pay could get us out of this as well. And the best way to do that is to get out of the so-called "free trade" agreements, IMHO.

[dionysus]

80. IMPEACH!1!!! ELEVENTY!!1!!

:eyes:

[lonestarnot]

89. And let some fuckwad control my money in a 401K? Hugh ugh, never again!

[blindpig]

91. Yep, it stinks and is sneaky too.

If there was to be a tax holiday it should have come out of the the general withholding.

[Faryn Balyncd]

93. K and R

[BrklynLiberal]

94. The lack of COLA the past two years is also a cut....

My costs have not remained the same, but my SS income has.

[earth mom]

95. Obama will oversee the destruction of Social Security. The denial is in full force on this thread.

:puke:

[TheWraith]

96. Unfortunately for you, "in your opinion" doesn't actually make it TRUE, which it's not.

There is no cut to Social Security benefits, funds, or total intake. Simply a deferral of some money from ONE YEAR's payroll taxes--not ten years, which this dishonest blogger is pushing--to the general fund instead of FICA taxes.

[grahamhgreen]

99. That all depends...

will SS have to pay the money back to the general fund?