Sunday, June 13, 2010

The Obama Recovery Gathers Momentum: Social Security Cash Flow Goes Negative a Full Five Years Ahead of Projections

Say you're 55 years old -- or younger -- and have been paying into Social Security your entire working career. And say you were counting on Social Security to last long enough to pay for your basic necessities. Say, a thousand or two a month.

After all, you've paid tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending upon your income bracket, into the "Social Security Lock-box". Of course, Democrats lied about there being a lock-box, a trust fund or any other sort of separate account for your payments. They threw the positive cash flow into the Treasury's general fund and spent it.

And now, for the very first time, the cash flow for an entire six month period is negative. That's a full five years ahead of projections.

Social Security tax receipts for the first half of 2010: $346.9 billion; Social Security benefits payments for the same period: $347.3 billion. Before this year, projections have always been that Social Security wouldn’t cross that line into negative cash flow for five years or so. Now it’s a reality. Congress has been spending Social Security’s positive cash flow for years. Now there’s no positive cash flow to spend.

To see how the negative trend has accelerated, consider the same figures for the first half of 2009: Social Security tax receipts were $366.0 billion and Social Security benefits payments were $334.3 billion. A positive cash flow of $31.7 billion has disappeared in the course of just 12 months. Scary.

Say you're under 55 years old and you voted Democrat.

Don't you feel like smacking yourself in the head right now?

President George W. Bush tried to begin the necessary reformation of Social Security in 2005. He was absolutely shredded by the liberal media and Democrats -- but I repeat myself -- who used every fear tactic, every big lie imaginable to tell Seniors they were going to lose their monthly checks.

Well, I got news for you twisted freaks: everyone's going to lose their monthly checks because Social Security must be reformed or it will simply implode.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Democrat Party has become a treasonous, poisonous passel of America-hating weasels. At best.

It's November or never, folks.


5 comments:

swede said...

Not a problem. Fire up the mint presses and print up some more cash. The government's "too big to fail" program has become too big to fail.

John David Galt said...

I wonder how many of the Congresscritters who created this Ponzi scheme in 1934 are still around to be put on trial. (Madoff was a piker.) They're the ones who should be held liable for Social Security's promises; today's workers had nothing to do with making them.

Anonymous said...

89 percent of the entire deficit is basically the result of the borrow and spend policies of the Republicans.

The last president to present a balanced budget before Clinton was Lyndon Johnson and that was done during the Vietnam War.

Carter attempted to reverse the borrow and spend policies that started under Ford who increased borrowing 17 percent per year in his presidency. Carter got this down to 13 percent per year, but Reagan brought it right back up by creating a Social Security Surplus, that did not exist prior to 1984 (they took in exactly what they needed to spend before Reagan) and then he started extreme borrowing from the Social Security Surpluses that were supposed to be saved.

Under Reagan the deficit went up from just under one trillion dollars, to 2.6 trillion.

Clinton got government borrowing down to an annual rate of one third of a percent, and when Bush came into office, his two tax cuts and increases to government spending went right back up again, with the deficit increasing to where it is today. Between 2003 and 2004 Bush added another trillion in spending, having the largest annual rate of government borrowing ever recorded. The deficit doubled over the last eight years.

The Old Man said...

So is he going to do a Clinton and send the "peace dividend" to the retirees? The deficit went up by 100% under Bush and ANOTHER 100% under Obama LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR.

BUT IT ISN'T THE PRESIDENT'S JOB!!!! (Chant "Bush's Fault!" for me, Anon - you know you want to!)
Obama's cronies (Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, and Franks) were running the congressional express to fiscal ruin under Bush. Do you recall whose job it is under the Constitution to produce the budget of the United States? (Hint - it ain't the Prez.) Plenty of blame for ALL the boneheads in Congress.
So dis-elect all of them. See if the word gets around. Nothing else seems to slow down the collapse of the American economy.

John S said...

Doesn't take a math genius to figure out why Social Security is broke. Take my case: in 2009 the government seized almost $10,000 of my pay in FICA taxes. This year I will pay nothing. (But I will collect almost $10,000 in unemployment benefits instead.) Multiply my story by 20 million and do the math.