I may be misunderstanding this... but if the general fund is negative outbound, and therefore is using equivalent funds from the Treasury that would otherwise had been held in trust for Soc Sec, then it is still borrowing. In reality, the positions should be segregated, but they don't really do it that way.

Even if the general fund were positive, if we were paying off the national debt, the Social Security trust fund would still be purchasing treasury bonds any time it is a positive state, unless we got rid of the trust fund. If both funds are positive, the Trust Fund would still be stockpiling Treasuries...and the moneys the government gets for those treasuries would then go towards paying off other treasuries that aren't renewed.

 

Effectively you're right that the government has been buoyed towards surpluses the last 30 years by the fact that the trust fund has been positive, and those surpluses have been the fuel for the upper class tax cuts...but there's no real obvious way to segregate these funds unless the Trust Fund doesn't exist. If excess funds come into OASDI to create a trust fund, they have to go somewhere, and Treasuries are the only logical candidate.

By the way, on the thread topic...it's actually official...Barack Hussein Obama has gathered up enough delegates to become the Democratic Nominee for President in 2012.

Even if the general fund were positive, if we were paying off the national debt, the Social Security trust fund would still be purchasing treasury bonds any time it is a positive state, unless we got rid of the trust fund. If both funds are positive, the Trust Fund would still be stockpiling Treasuries...and the moneys the government gets for those treasuries would then go towards paying off other treasuries that aren't renewed.

 

Effectively you're right that the government has been buoyed towards surpluses the last 30 years by the fact that the trust fund has been positive, and those surpluses have been the fuel for the upper class tax cuts...but there's no real obvious way to segregate these funds unless the Trust Fund doesn't exist. If excess funds come into OASDI to create a trust fund, they have to go somewhere, and Treasuries are the only logical candidate.

I just want to say that this particular use of the term "trust fund" is akin to politicians wanting to take away some group's rights and calling it protecting "freedom". What you are describing is not a trust fund by any reasonable definition.

 

I just want to say that this particular use of the term "trust fund" is akin to politicians wanting to take away some group's rights and calling it protecting "freedom". What you are describing is not a trust fund by any reasonable definition.

"Having a big pile of Treasury Bills built up because one particular program ran a surplus" seems to work for me.

 

If you're taking issue with how its structured, then the thing that the extra revenues should have been used for is to take extra Treasury bills off of the market. Instead, we slashed taxes. That was the choice.

Yet another reason to not vote Obama: needless pandering to the anti-gay movement. Nice to see Focus on the Family coming out in support of this!

 

http://motherjones.com/transition/inter.ph...s-pander-haters

 

He's delaying signing an executive order that bans LGBT discrimination among federal contractors.

An examination of why the JOBS bill Obama signed is so terrible, and why he deserves at least some of the blame

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs...bs-act-20120412

 

eta it also serves as a nice exposition of why large parts of the financial sector are basically just legalized theft.

Edited April 13, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

Apparently the President is hosting a campaign event in Afghanistan and has another national-address styled event scheduled for tonight, on the 1 year anniversary of the killing of Bin Laden.

Apparently the President is hosting a campaign event in Afghanistan and has another national-address styled event scheduled for tonight, on the 1 year anniversary of the killing of Bin Laden.

 

Good thing he's not politicizing that.

Good thing he's not politicizing that.

who wouldn't? At least he isn't dressing up in a flight suit, that would be ridiculous!

who wouldn't? At least he isn't dressing up in a flight suit, that would be ridiculous!

 

No, the accomplishment is fine, the crap about Romney not making the same decision is crap. Of all things, finding and killing Bin Laden should have been a non-partisan issue. It should have been a collective, celebratory anniversary. Instead Obama crapped all over that and used it to try and score political points.

No, the accomplishment is fine, the crap about Romney not making the same decision is crap. Of all things, finding and killing Bin Laden should have been a non-partisan issue. It should have been a collective, celebratory anniversary. Instead Obama crapped all over that and used it to try and score political points.

I think the Afghanistan trip/speech is crap, but this is one case where the President has every right to take a victory lap on this issue. He got called Naive and inexperienced/unready in 2008 by these same opponents when he said he would violate Pakistani sovereignty if it allowed for "Getting" Bin Laden. He was intimately involved in the decision making that led up to the strike by multiple accounts. He would have taken enormous amounts of blame if things went wrong (Desert One). This was a major success for this Adminstration. It was clearly a partisan issue as early as 2002, when we refocused away from Al Qaeda onto Iraq.

No, the accomplishment is fine, the crap about Romney not making the same decision is crap. Of all things, finding and killing Bin Laden should have been a non-partisan issue. It should have been a collective, celebratory anniversary. Instead Obama crapped all over that and used it to try and score political points.

 

The decision to go ahead with a high-risk operation in a foreign country without their knowledge and approval is not an open-and-shut case.

 

edit: "even Carter would have done it" with that implication that Carter was weak is a pretty dumb thing to say, too, since Carter, you know, approved that rescue operation into Iran that ended tragically.

Edited May 2, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

I think the Afghanistan trip/speech is crap, but this is one case where the President has every right to take a victory lap on this issue. He got called Naive and inexperienced/unready in 2008 by these same opponents when he said he would violate Pakistani sovereignty if it allowed for "Getting" Bin Laden. He was intimately involved in the decision making that led up to the strike by multiple accounts. He would have taken enormous amounts of blame if things went wrong (Desert One). This was a major success for this Adminstration. It was clearly a partisan issue as early as 2002, when we refocused away from Al Qaeda onto Iraq.

 

So for once let's have a President be above all that petty s***. He could have gotten his due (as if he hasn't already) by simply remembering the accomplishment, not starting a "see! i've got balls! Romney wouldn't have given the go ahead like I did!"

 

 

Going after Romney does seem pretty cheap, though. He could have done a victory lap and scored political points without resorting to that. It's pretty dumb politically because it's not like Obama's going to flip the "Dems are weak on military/CT" script with that shot.

The decision to go ahead with a high-risk operation in a foreign country without their knowledge and approval is not an open-and-shut case.

edit: "even Carter would have done it" with that implication that Carter was weak is a pretty dumb thing to say, too, since Carter, you know, approved that rescue operation into Iran that ended tragically.

 

Bush and Obama said they would do that years before Osama's whereabouts were known. It really wasn't all that shocking.

Going after Romney does seem pretty cheap, though. He could have done a victory lap and scored political points without resorting to that. It's pretty dumb politically because it's not like Obama's going to flip the "Dems are weak on military/CT" script with that shot.

I totally disagree with the idea that this is somehow politically dumb. The whole reason why the Republicans, including both Romney and 2 posts above, are annoyed, is that this is an effective attack that can literally use the current candidate's own words.

I totally disagree with the idea that this is somehow politically dumb. The whole reason why the Republicans, including both Romney and 2 posts above, are annoyed, is that this is an effective attack that can literally use the current candidate's own words.

 

Except that (and here we go 'round the political merry go round) Romney didn't say he wouldn't have given the go ahead. His comment was something like I would have focused my efforts elsewhere. Which, by the way, is exactly what Obama did until they got a solid lead with Osama's courier.

 

Edit: and let's face it, the President isn't involved with any of this until the Pentagon needs a yes/no answer on a mission. Was he briefed? Yes. But it's not like he's providing the Pentagon with a strategy to best utilize the courier or the best tactical plan to get Bin Laden. He was presented with the first chance in 7-8 years of finding out where Bin Laden was and he said "absolutely, go for it." Do you really doubt that Romney would have said "nah f*** it, who needs Bin Laden?"

Edited May 2, 201213 yr by Jenksismybitch

Bush and Obama said they would do that years before Osama's whereabouts were known. It really wasn't all that shocking.

 

Bush, at one point, said he didn't give a s*** where Osama was.

 

I think Obama was talking about this specific operation which was far from a guaranteed thing. He could have decided to hold and wait for more information and an increased likelihood of success but chose to proceed.

I totally disagree with the idea that this is somehow politically dumb. The whole reason why the Republicans, including both Romney and 2 posts above, are annoyed, is that this is an effective attack that can literally use the current candidate's own words.

 

the sound byte on this is different when the entire statement is heard/read. context.

 

but i'm sure that won't stop NBC News from cutting it up and pasting in stuff from other Romney interviews to give it that extra 'spice' the story needs.

Except that (and here we go 'round the political merry go round) Romney didn't say he wouldn't have given the go ahead. His comment was something like I would have focused my efforts elsewhere. Which, by the way, is exactly what Obama did until they got a solid lead with Osama's courier.

Actually, no it isn't again, there was a total shift in orders back to "Find this specific target", and the intelligence agencies said it was about a 50/50 shot when the order was given, and there was substantial disagreement in the room, including by the secretary of defense who favored a drone strike (because then if it hit the wrong target, it was just more collateral damage).

Bush, at one point, said he didn't give a s*** where Osama was.

I think Obama was talking about this specific operation which was far from a guaranteed thing. He could have decided to hold and wait for more information and an increased likelihood of success but chose to proceed.

 

I find that incredibly hard to believe.

I totally disagree with the idea that this is somehow politically dumb. The whole reason why the Republicans, including both Romney and 2 posts above, are annoyed, is that this is an effective attack that can literally use the current candidate's own words.

 

Are low-information undecided voters really going to buy into the idea that the Republican candidate, the guy representing the party constantly calling for war, is soft on terror?

 

He could have bragged about his decision and implied that it was a tough choice that not everyone would have made. This would still have gotten Romney on the defensive but then it isn't such a blatant partisan attack.

 

On the other hand, Republicans whining about using this as a partisan cudgel is pretty funny in light of the 2002-2008 use of 9/11 and removing Saddam.

Actually, no it isn't again, there was a total shift in orders back to "Find this specific target", and the intelligence agencies said it was about a 50/50 shot when the order was given, and there was substantial disagreement in the room, including by the secretary of defense who favored a drone strike (because then if it hit the wrong target, it was just more collateral damage).

 

There was an effort to revamp the search for Bin Laden and it started in the Pentagon, not the White House.

Are low-information undecided voters really going to buy into the idea that the Republican candidate, the guy representing the party constantly calling for war, is soft on terror?

 

He could have bragged about his decision and implied that it was a tough choice that not everyone would have made. This would still have gotten Romney on the defensive but then it isn't such a blatant partisan attack.

On the other hand, Republicans whining about using this as a partisan cudgel is pretty funny in light of the 2002-2008 use of 9/11 and removing Saddam.

 

No more funny than Democrats exploiting it after complaining for years about Republicans doing it.