David Gregory's opening to MTP: "...Budget-busting programs like Medicare and Social Security..."

[high density]

Yes... It's not the budget-busting tax cuts or the budget-busting defense spending. It's the budget-busting medicare and social security. I wonder why I continue to waste electricity recording and watching this program.

[ananda]

1. How about budget busting wars and...

... budget busting tax breaks to the rich and corporate,
and all those welfare payments and bailouts to Wall Street
and other businesses?

[RBInMaine]

2. "MSM" = Corporate Propaganda

[xchrom]

4. +1

[Lorien]

63. Yep. It's best to turn it off. nt

[JoePhilly]

3. I screamed "You lie!!" when he said that. He's a clown.

[reformist2]

24. The revenue stream from Social Security is irresistible.

Wall Street simply can't stand that they haven't been able to get their paws on it. And we should always be watching them on this, since they will NEVER stop trying.

[PSPS]

5. Social Security isn't even a budget item.

Or at least it wasn't until Obama's harebrained "tax holiday" scheme.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. I've liked to call him McGregory. I think I'm going to change it to MICGregory.

2 birds. 1 stone.

[wtmusic]

7. Switch Gregory's script for Mein Kampf, and he'd happily oblige

The consummate corporate tool.

[fittosurvive]

8. Defense spending is definitely a major expenditure, but...

[high density]

12. Yes, they are big expenditures. However, we watched the Repukes run up the debt

with tax cuts and wars. Now the discussion they've started is, "We must cut Social Security and Medicare to fix our problems!"

[fittosurvive]

27. That is true; however, the wars are far more problematic, for those wasted $

have a demonstrable negative effect on the economy. On the other hand, there are many theories regarding the effects of tax cuts.

I believe that more Americans would be willing to consider higher taxes, if there was not such an incredible amount of corruption and waste. Then again, if those problems were eliminated, the need to raise taxes would be eliminated.

[wtmusic]

16. Still looking for that "Defense" deduction on my paycheck

but having a hard time finding it.

Social Security benefits have been funded over a lifetime of payroll taxes. Yet you're lumping those in with Defense spending. Why? :shrug:

[fittosurvive]

31. Because SS funds are only separated on paper (deceptive accounting).

[wtmusic]

34. It wasn't always deceptive accounting

It was LBJ's mistake to mix it with the general fund in the 60s (he was hoping to increase SS funding).

It backfired. Now it's people paying into the general fund, thinking they're funding their retirement, but actually funding tax breaks to billionaires.

[fittosurvive]

43. LBJ was a shrewd, crafty and powerful politician. In view of that, it is not likely

that he was unaware of the negative consequences of unsound accounting methods.

I believe that he and many other members of Congress had been trying figure out a way to gain access to SS funds all along. That pot of money was a temptation that power hungry politicians could not resist spending. They didn't care about the consequences then, and they don't care about the consequences now.

[Hannah Bell]

54. not exactly.

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting.

Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget."

This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget.

But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


The piece they don't explain is that all excess SS revenues have always been borrowed into the general fund in exchange for US securities. The trust fund consists of securities that are redeemable by the government.

If you think about it, there's nothing else that could be done with excess money collected.

Johnson's change in accounting practices didn't change that fact.

What did change things was Reagan's speedup of SS tax increases.

The increase in SS taxes above what was needed to finance current retirees increased revenues so much that the SS trust fund now contains five or six years' worth of SS payments, where the historical average was about one year or less.

One year was the mandate of the original legislation.

[Hannah Bell]

53. um, what are you talking about?

if they're separated on paper, how is that accounting "deceptive"?

are you complaining because they mix the dollar bills or something?

fyi, social security accounting is in fact one of the most transparent parts of federal budgeting. you can see precisely how much was taken in in ss taxes, how much was paid out to beneficiaries, how much was borrowed into the federal budget aka trust fund, how much interest was paid on that debt. you can find that information in each report of the ss administrators & there are briefer updates inbetween those.

there is no "deceptive accounting"

[fittosurvive]

61. Um, Deception.

The CBO numbers show a couple of trillion in assets in the SS trust. These assets primarily consist of receivables from the general fund. However, these receivables aren't collectible unless additional taxes are imposed on the people who contributed to the SS fund in the first place.

This method of accounting is not only deceptive, but it constitutes fraud in the real world and people go to jail for practicing it.

This is only one of the many deceptions entwined within the means and methods of managing the SS fund.

[Buns_of_Fire]

17. It's a lot, but most of these graphs ignore the fact that SS is a separate revenue stream.

Hence, the TWO federal boxes on your pay stub -- one for income tax, one for FICA.

Or at least it used to be that way. I haven't seen a pay stub in so long that, for all I know, there's a new box for "CTPA" (Congressional Tanning Products Appropriation).

[Gidney N Cloyd]

22. It's just amazing how often this needs to be pointed out around here.

But thanks for doing it.:thumbsup:

[Buns_of_Fire]

26. You're welcome. It's becoming one of my pet peeves.

Take Social Security (and the Medicare portion) out of that graph, add back in a sliver for that ill-advised 2% "holiday" on FICA deductions*, recalculate it, and the whole thing starts looking a LOT different!:hi:



* Personally, I look for that "holiday" to be not only extended, but since it's only on the employee contribution, I look for the employers to be given a matching 2% "holiday" because... Well, just because.:banghead:

[fittosurvive]

29. Yes, but that is just a shell game designed to mask the true numbers.

In the real world they call it "cooking the books."

[Buns_of_Fire]

36. And apparently the CBO (the source of the chart) is helping. Inadvertently, perhaps.

Heck, I always thought the CBO was one of the more-or-less straight arrows about this type of stuff. Depressing.

[fittosurvive]

45. I agree with your suggestion that CBO's numbers are perhaps inadvertently flawed.

With so much money being distributed to so such an extraordinary number of bureaucracies, I would be astonished if they weren't.

Nevertheless, we need start counting somewhere and the CBO numbers are widely regarded as the best estimate available.

[juajen]

39. This is just wrong! We pay through the nose for SS and have

a 2.6 Trillion IOU from the Feds to prove it. How can they include this in a budget as if this money is given to the government, and not set aside for the people who pay for it? It is way past time for SS money to be set aside and never co-mingled with regular gov. funds. Shades of the stolen election! Al Gore tired to tell this country, they just weren't listening; or, perhaps, the people that could steal the election were listening, and acted accordingly.

We cannot let this crap keep going around without disputing it at every turn. I have people telling me often that "we just can't afford to keep paying the elderly". People, really, start speaking out and speak out with the facts at your disposal. We are a "paid in full" program, not a part of the usgovernment budget.

[fittosurvive]

46. It is wrong, but it is also irrational to have expected them to resist the allure

of power that they could acquire by simply cracking the SS safe.

[ReggieVeggie]

49. social security is already OUR money

If it's going to be altered and/or not provided to me when I retire, then I'm going to stop paying social security

[Webster Green]

9. Isn't that the dude who was dancing while KKKarl Rove was "rapping".

I have a solution though. Years ago, I put my teevee up for grabs on craigslist freebies. Problem solved!

Streaming Al Jazeera here.

[Sal Minella]

28. Same here -- 20+ years with no TV and glad of it.

I miss a lot of references people make, but can catch Rachel on video clips all the time, and I'm not at all convinced there's anything else worth watching.

I feel my life is no poorer for never having seen Sex and the City or Seinfeld or Desperate Housewives.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

33. Well, I'd be hard-pressed to give up my TV

but am proud to state I gave up on ALL Sunday talk shows quite some time ago. Truly liberating.

:donut:

[RKP5637]

10. The guy's a waste. n/t

[myrna minx]

11. He is such a clown and a tool. nt

[madmax]

13. DG would fit in nicely over at Faux News. n/t

[spanone]

14. the real enemy of democracy is media consolidation. eom.

[deminks]

15. Dances-with-Roves was not hired to be a moderator. nt

[Faygo Kid]

18. David Gregory has got to go.

He is a total, unrepentant slime ball and a tool of the likes of the Koch brothers.

Even worse, he likes that status.

[fasttense]

19. He's just repeating what the billionaire Koch brothers and Pete Peterson told him to.

Because what's the use of being rich if you can't destroy the middle class in a country?

[Riley18]

20. His show is completely without substance. Pure propaganda.

[OHdem10]

21. Mr Gregory, please you believe a safety net is a budget buster.

At least you are honest in your support of making
the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Yes, ever since the time of Reagan the Republicans
have cut Cut Cut Taxes. Fewer Revenues going to the
the treasury to support any type of Government Sevices.
Some of us would say this is the budget buster.

This is how you and yours make the rich richer.
Cutting taxes gave the millionaires and high
earners millions. The working class were lucky
to get fifty dollars a month. Now you want to give
the Middle Class maybe 20 bucks a month and tell him
to completely support his family and his parents
because you are going to take money away from Grandma.
The Working Class and Seniors become poorer and poorer.

One by one we can watch the Media as they support
making America a Third World Nation. Few Rich and
masses of working poor and abject poverty.

When they cut SS so deeply the elderly cannot survive
and they have made the working class into the working
poor, what can you otherwise believe.

Did Gregory explain what happens to the people
when we cut these budget busting social programs.
No, he must be happy with discarding the Middle Class.
and our present Aristrocracy??

No one ever asks the Republicans--what do you propose
to do with all the poor people you are making????

[reformist2]

23. He's going overboard to please his sponsors.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

25. It seems to me most of the public isn't buying this shit

if the latest polls are any indication.

[Thunderstruck]

30. Notice how the "entitlement programs" rhetoric is evolving?

First the idea that these programs are entitlements gets floated and the stupid half of the population begins getting their hackles up. Slowly the heat is turned up over the course of a few weeks. Now, they are at the point where they can treat the lies as if they are truth.

Pravda had nothing on the former USSR as our media has on us now.

[VoteProgressive]

32. Military spending is out of control. no one cares.

[Rex]

35. Best thing I ever did was get rid of cable tv!!!

Fuck them all, they want us working poor types to suffer at the expense of the well off. NO THANKS.

[TicketyBoo]

44. You don't need cable TV

to watch Meet the Press. It's on NBC — over the air.

Me, I watch CBS's Sunday Morning and usually stick around for Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. I quit watching that show before Tim Russert died.

Just a waste of my time.

[TicketyBoo]

38. I can't stand

David Gregory. He is such an obvious shill.

[jillan]

40. Anybody know how to make a petition? It's time to replace this clown with someone like

Lawrence O'Donnell... someone who can interview republicans and is not afraid to ask them the tough questions.

It's time for another movement. The only somewhat liberal cable news station needs a somewhat liberal moderator on MTP.

[FlyByNight]

41. Gregory's just parroting Beltway...

...received opinion.

He's the dutiful media whore. He needs to keep the lines of access open. I'm sure he's fairly well compensated for being the ventriloquist's dummy and I'm sure he doesn't give a shit (along with much of Congress) about what happens outside the Beltway.

[Iris]

42. I fucking hate these bastards. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

47. White House graph for the new budget ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-the-future/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-the-future/interactive-budget

"View an interactive breakdown of where your tax dollars go in the Federal budget."

Look at the graph on the WH site, over 40% of tax dollars go to SS and Medicare.

:shrug:

[southernyankeebelle]

48. I stopped listening to all these sunday talk shows. They all lie

[BigBearJohn]

50. I stopped watching it the moment he took it over.

[NuttyFluffers]

51. good question. why do you continue to waste such electricity?

brings me back to an Onion article a few days ago about a man calculating all his wasted time "listening to both sides," and "giving a fair shake" and all that claptrap. sometimes discussions do not take place on an honest level and are therefore a waste of time... and in this case electricity. sad that a comedy piece has to display a valuable truth like that, but there it is.

so again, why do you? do you feel more informed after such shows on the average (most DUers are better informed going into such programs than coming out of it, so i'm assuming you are in that group and thus getting little from the show)? or do you enjoy raising your blood pressure as a form of delicious masochism? and if so, couldn't hot sauce be a better addiction substitute?

[SpiralHawk]

52. Gregory is an overpaid right-wing hack

no honor, no cred...

[JCMach1]

55. That royally pissed me off!

[Enthusiast]

56. I've been screaming about this

for years. Every issue discussed in the media is framed in this way. Surely David Gregory is smart enough to know that they have dedicated funding mechanisms. This is propaganda, pure and simple.

[_ed_]

57. David Gregory is a paid propagandist for the GE corporation

Bottom line. If you get your news from GE, then this is what you should expect.

[FourScore]

58. I haven't watched it in years.

I stopped watching after they allowed (promoted) the Iraq War. I get my news from online, and I gotta say, I am better informed than most people.

[GreenPartyVoter]

59. My bp just went up off the charts.

x(

[mod mom]

60. Does anyone still watch MTP outside of immediate families?

Just wondering.

[Raine]

62. Gregory is an ASS. I had my gripes with Russert

but Gregory is just so pathetic and inept compared to him. x(

[Motown_Johnny]

64. I always liked Russert. Gregory is a stooge who clearly does not understand

any issue in the slightest.


White House correspondents pretty much just parrot what the Press Secretary says and David has taken this talent with him to MTP. He makes a good parrot but has very little knowledge concerning any issue and does not seem to have the intellectual curiosity necessary to comprehend an issue.


It seems clear that MTP should go back to a format where multiple "journalists" ask questions. This would give us some slight chance of getting one a week that can make sense.