Originally Posted by Xcali

Well sadly for you there was no huge increase in spending under Obama. Government spending when he came into office was around 3.5 trillion , his own spending averaged around 3.5 trillion... He has an overall increase of .04% over 4 years... So the reality is that he didn't increase spending. He may not have cut spending either, but given the FACT that the Republicans are intentionally sabotaging the economy ..... well you know the rest....



There is no Documentation , the bill never passed. It's well known that Obama laid the offer on the table, 4 trillion in cuts, including entitlements. He went against his own Party in an attempt to strike the deal. Boehnor took the deal to the Economic Terrorist Organization and when they found out the deal included revenue they refused to support it. With no support among his own Boehnor walked away from the deal.
It was during the Debt Ceiling downgrade debacle, so The President let them sign off on the automatic Sequester deal, which they are now trying to get out of.



Yeah the transportation spending bill didn't have Obama's name attached to it, of course the Republicans will make that deal. Congress as a whole own the blame, but for Obstructing the Presidents Agenda sorry, that belongs to the Republicans, and more specifically the Economic Terrorists Organization.

My theory is that the Republicans know that if they allow Obama to get anything passed the policy will ultimately work, and then they are looking at another few decades of Democratic Rule. They went 50 years in the minority, they aren't going to give up control any time soon, and they are willing to break the nation to prove it.

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

Right. Obama isn't responsible for entitlement spending, even though Bush and all the other presidents were. I knew that is what your claim of less spending by Obama was predicated on. Don't count entitlements or wars that Obama continued on for 4 years or the Bush tax cuts that Obama extended or the stimulus or auto bailout. What a joke!!!

Originally Posted by Xcali

I didn't count Entitlements in with Bush's spending either because Social Security is off Budget and doesn't count on the deficit. If it did we would have a much bigger deficit don't ya think?...

I gave Obama credit for the Auto Bailout.. but since that money came from TARP, which was bush spending you'd be hard pressed to count it towards Obama. I gave him Credit for the Stimulus.... Yet you still come up about 4.2 trillion dollars short of the spending that bush did. Talk about a Joke....lol

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The joke is the Obama apologist Enron style accounting treating entitlement spending as an off balance sheet dumping ground for losses. SS surpluses are used to "buy" special purpose bonds converting the surplus to quick cash for spending in the current fical year while leaving the shortfall problem for later. Treasury treats these toxic SS bonds as an asset. It is an accounting scheme that wouldn't pass a rudimentary audit in private industry.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

SS trust fund bonds "earn" interest. When SS has a negative cash flow as it does for the foreseeable future, these interest payments from the current FY general fund are used to offset it. There are only 2 sources for the general fund, taxes and debt.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

If it sounds like a Ponzi scheme that's because it is. By 2020 according to the SS trustees it will be necessary to start cashing the trust fund bonds to meet SS payment obligations or the Ponzi scheme will collapse.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

While it is true SS funding is a structural defect, Obama has childishly refused to entertain reforming it. Instead we get vapid claims he has no responsibility for the pending collapse.

Originally Posted by Xcali

Well your first statement shows you have no clue what you're talking about. Social Security was taken off budget by Ronald Reagan. He passed the Law in 83 that took it off budget starting in 93.. so your accounting trick wasn't Obama's doing.

When Social Security Revenues exceed monthly payments the overage goes into the trust fund by forcing the Government to issue IOU's in the form of Securities Bonds . The Government then uses that extra money to spend wherever they need to spend it. ( Clinton used it to pay down the Deficits and help balance the budgets for instance)..

Under normal circumstances the surplus just continues to grow with these " IOU's) .. and it costs the Government nothing. But when the Revenues fall off like they are now and there is not enough incoming to cover monthly benefits, the Government is then forced to borrow elsewhere and buy back enough of those IOU's to cover the month. This increases Government spending.



Trust Fund FAQs



It's not a Ponzi scheme... the Program is solvent for the foreseeable future.



Well We can't say Clinton, Bush, Or Bush's Daddy exactly went out of their way to reform Social Security either now can we.

If Obama leaves the Payroll tax for Employee at 4.2 % he will be responsible for the eventual collapse , but he still has four more years to do something to strengthen Social Security....

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Claiming I blame Obama for SS's bankruptcy is a classic strawman. Spending the SS surplus has been going on for decades under Presidents of both parties. While we agree that the government exchanges the surplus for IOU the comment omitts the nature of the exchange, the bonds can only be "sold" to the US Treasury. They are unsecured debt but the Treasury treats them as an asset. The government treats the funds from these phony sales as ready cash to be spent.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Like all Ponzi schemes before it SS will collapse when it can no longer make payments from its cash flow. The trustees forecast this will be around 2020 not accounting for Obama's tax cut.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The previous administration attempted to reform SS in 2005. Democrats reacted as they do now demgogery with no alternative solution. Obama has offered no plan to avert SS bankruptcy. It is a problem left for some future President but Obama is quick to champion benefits.

Originally Posted by Xcali

You did blame Obama , it's not a strawman....



The Cash flow is short now, the Program survives on the Surplus. If things stayed the same as they are now the program is solvent to 2024.. Unless Obama repeals his tax cut.




Attempting didn't get it done now did it. Bush didn't try to reform Social Security he tried to Privatize it. You keep trying to find ways to attach the problems of Social Security to Obama, don't you think you right wing extremists have blamed him for enough **** he didn't do?...

The only thing he did to harm SS was reducing the Payroll tax. That tax expires with everything else at the end of the year, we'll have to wait and see if he extends it or not.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

My critcism was of the Obama apologists fraudulent accounting. The hypersensitivity of the true believer matches that of our current President. It is a major reason we are stuck in this hyperpartisan quagmire.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

SS death spiral is being draw out by feeding it trust fund "interest" payments from current year tax revenues and borrowed money. That is a bandaid financial solution that will run out soon forcing an attempt to redeem the trust fund IOU. At that point it is either dip into the current year budget or deny benefits or have the Federal Reserve monetize the SS debt via QE.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Your claim was that Obama couldn't be held responsible for failing to reform SS because none of the recent administrations had reformed it either. The 2005 reform proposal fell prey to Democrat demogoging and intransigence. This same intractable opposition to reform is evident today with Pelosi's angry response to Obama's claim he had put entitlements on the table during debt ceiling increase negotiations.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The simple fact is Obama's idea of reforming SS is to slash tax revenues to it. He has promised "steps" to get SS on sound financial footing. Naturally he gave no details of his plan. But we do have a model of his reform approach in the plundering of the Medicare taxes to pay for Obamacare. This was accomplished by cutting Medicare benefit payment rates. There is no reason to believe Obama will not take the same denial of benefits approach to "reforming" SS.

Originally Posted by Xcali

And that's why you seem to be blaming Obama. Calling it the Obama Apologists Fraudulent Accounting , is saying that Obama is the one who created this , when in fact it's the same accounting trick that Reagan put into effect and the same accounting trick every President after him used concerning Social Security. Obama didn't do anything but follow the Law that Reagan passed. I happen to think it's a good thing, if they put Social Security back on budget half the country would die of heart attacks when the first Budget was revealed and we had a 4 trillion dollar deficit.



Mostly borrowed money. Social Security pays each month, so as long as the revenues from FICA are below outgoing payments the Government spending just keeps going up. Look, I agree with you Social Security is a huge problem, but it doesn't have to be. There are a few things that could be done right now to bring it back and extend it into the future but until they get the unemployment down it won't work. The biggest problem now is that there are only 3 people working and paying into the program for every one person who is drawing from the program... it won't survive after the surplus runs out.



When've President Obama came into office he was faced with a financial crisis, unemployment through the roof, stock market about to crash, two wars we didn't need, and countless other problems left over from the previous 8 years. I'm not holding his feet to the fire for failing to reform Social Security considering what he was faced with.

the reform plan in 2005 was not reform, Bush tried to Privatize it. Privatizing is just republican code for eliminate... No one fell for it.



This wasn't his Idea of reform. He cut Payroll taxes because we were in a recession and he was trying to put money in peoples pockets to boost demand. It didn't work because it's simply not enough. I disagreed with that decision, although it did come with some good as well as bad.

1: on the bad side it caused the Social Security revenues to fall off even further with high unemployment and the program is now in the red, so we were forced to turn to the surplus to make up the difference.

2: The good thing is that it slowed the government spending . With no monthly overage for the Government to spend they were forced to slow spending. there was an increase in spending on Social Security because they had to make up the difference each month, but they no longer have the piggy bank to go on a spending spree.

As far s Medicare Obama did not take a single penny out of the medicare program, nor did he cut benefits. The 716 billion is projected savings, it doesn't come off the top of medicare. He didn't cut anything on the benefit side, in fact most seniors gain an increase in benefits because of his plan. The savings is from cutting back on fraud and cutting payments to providers who jack their prices up . It's the same 716 billion in savings that your buddy Paul Ryan included in his own budget .

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

You are manufacturing offense with the strawman that I blame Obama for SS's impending bankruptcy. It is the Obama apologists who deserve blame for the fraudulent accounting to deny reality because it reflects poorly on Obama's failure to attempt SS reform.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Your claim that Obama cannot be held responsible for failing to reform SS falls flat in light of his signing the stimulus into law 6 weeks into his term and his decision to spend 14 months on Obamacare. Obama chose to create a massive new entitlement rather than save existing ones. It is consistent with Obama's stated preference for new spending over the tough business of reform.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The fact is the lowest unemployment rate during Obama's Presidency was 7.6%. That was on inaguration day. His supposed priority of addressing unemployment failed to fix the problem, just made it worse.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Ignoring failing entitlement programs while creating a massive new entitlement and implementing policies that have increased unemployment surely nobody could have done better.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The $716 billion plundered from Medicare isn't savings it is cuts to provider payments and eliminating choices provided by Medicare advantage. The con game is claiming benefits will not be impacted by underfunding reimbursements. Of course the purely nonpartisan decision to use Obamacare demonstration project funds to extend Medicare advantage until after the election exposes that the OA doesn't believe their own propaganda.