From Dean Baker to Brad Delong to Flavius to you:
Social Security Is NOT Selling Government Bonds: In an article discussing the implications of the extension of the payroll tax cut, [Jia Lynn Yang of] the Washington Post told readers:
This year, the Social Security system projects that it will pay out $46 billion more in benefits than it will collect in cash. It made up for the shortfall by redeeming Treasury bonds bought in years when there were cash surpluses.
This is not true. The Social Security trust fund is projected to earn $114.9 billion in interest on the bonds it holds. It will use a portion of these earnings to pay current benefits. It will not be redeeming its bonds.
Comments
Interesting. Thanks for the highlight.
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 6:22pm
Facts!
Thank you so much.
Oh--you have presented a link that takes me to some glen beckerhead link! Or some links that wish all my info.
But the first link is kosher and I thank you.
by Richard Day on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 6:45pm
Facts: Usually so boring, but recently they take on the flavor of joyful, pleasant-scented truth!
And they are so rarely given the sunlit glory that they so richly need in our so overwhelmingly ignorance-adoring society.
Thank you! So sad that those who need to read this, won't!
by CVille Dem on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 9:04pm
There is no Social Security Trust Fund libtards! George W. Bush, April, 2005:
“A lot of people in America think there is a trust — that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you,” Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg.
“But that’s not the way it works,” Bush said. “There is no trust ‘fund’ — just IOUs that I saw firsthand,” Bush said...
Bush was just telling the truth, GOP style. For Republicans, gov't IOU's and 'trust funds' are just a scam to fleece small fry suckers who pay payroll taxes.
by NCD on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 9:08pm
Two things that particularly bother Republicans are:
o Not accepting W's explanation that there is no social security Trust Fund. And
o Endangering the social security Trust Fund by extending the reduction in its withholding tax.
by Flavius on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 12:52am
As long as you are fact checking..... is this one true?
(Sent to me by email, by a group seeking my vote)
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” President Obama, September 12, 2008
Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income of “high-income” taxpayers which could apply to proceeds from the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income, depending on your individual circumstances and any capital gains tax exclusions. Importantly, the “high income” thresholds are not indexed for inflation so will reach increasing numbers of middle-class taxpayers over time.
VOTERS NEED TO KNOW.
If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?
by Resistance on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 5:42am
No, it's not true.
It's a tax on >$500K *PROFIT*. So if you buy a house for $1 and sell it for $500K, there's still no tax. If you sell it for $600K, you pay 3.8% on $100K, or $3762.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:29am
Or to expand on PeraclesPlease: VOTERS DO NEED TO KNOW that if you sell a $400,000 home there will NOT be a $15,200 tax bill.
And this bill is NOT set to screw the retiring generation. Unlike the email you quoted. Which was intended to cause them to vote against their own interests.
Lucky you came here to check the facts. They're wrong.
And yes it is important that in November 2012 you don't vote for people like the group who attempted to mislead you.
Unless of course you actually agree with them and you are misleading us.
by Flavius on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 1:33pm
Thanks for this. Would you please consider doing this often, highlighting various topics that have been so perverted or misunderstood (and not just by Repubs, but others too).
i.e. - Facts about the Keystone Pipeline, Healthcare issues, domestic and foreign budget, et al. Timely matters. Rumor control as it were. I know it's much to request, but sure would be appreciated and greatly needed.
Happy New Year.
by Aunt Sam on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:50pm
I'm flattered by the suggestion. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to be a truth squad.That said, it's useful to know that you'd like me to do so. I'm uncomfortable using up dagblog space with something as sterile as providing a second life here for stuff first posted elsewhere.
by Flavius on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 10:16pm
I can understand, but the truth is there is so much info spread over hundreds of posts that it is impossible to 'keep up' with the flow of factual data.
I come to these blogs in an effort to become better informed. Posts like this one are on point, concise and provide me with knowledge that I need and utilize both in making decisions and to share with others. (I don't consider these types of posts sterile, in fact quite the opposite - very fertile and productive.)
Again, appreciate.
by Aunt Sam on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 10:35pm
To second what Aunt Sam is saying, don't consider non-controversial (on dag, at least) with being sterile. Sure, a good Ron Paul post will generate a lot of comments, and do have their place, but it's often the things we have less of an opinion about (exactly because we have less knowledge about) that are more useful to think about.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:37am
OK.
But I also indulge myself in occasional quotes of poems. Mostly, but not always, somewhat related to current issues.
So beware!
by Flavius on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:13am