While I drafted this as a "news" item, I thought it appropriate to add in the comment section that the existence of the $2.6 trillion surplus explains why the billionaire funded hard right is so Hell bent on privatization.

One can just envision the same greedy Wall Street banksters who brought us the credit default swaps casino that has destroyed the home ownership hopes of so many Americans, rubbing their sweaty fingers together as they seek to squeeze every last penny from the Social Security Trust Fund which provides the last remnant of the New Deal safety net.

I'd yell "Bernie for President" if we didn't need him so badly in the Senate.

Go Bernie!

Another reason I heart VT.

May Bernie live long and prosper.

Funny, just a few weeks ago if we didn't increase the debt ceiling seniors might not have received their SS checks. Or apparently that's just the lie the left told seniors to scare the hell out of them. Or maybe we don't have a $2.6 trillion surplus. Or maybe either scenario works depending on what the fear of the moment is that the left needs to sell. Bingo

Dredd

May Bernie live long and prosper.

May he know how much he is loved in this country.

So few in DC acknowledge the poor. When Rep. Sanders was doing his filibuster, he mentioned people who put plastic on their windows in the winter..in his homestate. How many in DC even know about what WE have to do to keep warm in the winter.

Funny how WingNutSteve attributes this or that assertion to "the left" without ever providing a link to support his bogus claim.

WingNutSteve -

Cuz I like ya, and because you're so desperately scammed by the RWers you follow, and because you keep trying so hard here, I'll help you out. Again.

If the Government is not authorized to write checks that would put it over its legal debt ceiling, the Government would have to pick and choose what checks to write. Since arguably defaulting on loan repayments to outside investors (such as foreign countries) would cause more downgrades on U.S. treasury bonds, it might have been decided that it was wise to pay those off first, which might or might not have left enough available cash to pay off things like Social Security, military, etc etc etc.

Now, remember that "Lockbox" that Al Gore talked about way back when, which I'm sure you made fun of? He was talking about putting the Social Security trust fund into a lockbox, so it couldn't be borrowed from to pay for other things. That's what we now do, you see. Because Social Security has plenty of money to fund it for the next 25 years or so, the geniuses in our government have decided: "Hey, let's borrow some money from Social Security, since it has plenty of money in it, instead of from other places, like foreign governments!"

So while the Social Security program has plenty of money, doesn't need to borrow to pay its bills, adds ZERO to our nation's deficit (actually decreases it, in one respect, by keeping us from having to borrow even more money from foreign governments), and would have been protected from Bush and his pirates (had Al Gore been allowed to win the election he won), but for folks like yourself who thought it was hysterical to make fun of his attempt to safeguard those funds in a "lockbox" instead of allowing Bush to give them away.

So, now, what exactly was the weak, misinformed, unsupportable, unsubstantiated point you were hoping to make this time, again?

You got my point brad. if there is a $2.6 trillion surplus there was no reason to attempt to scare seniors into thinking they wouldn't get their checks, except to manipulate public opinion. The rest of your drivel has nothing to do with my comment. It should be in a "lockbox" instead of allowing: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson (a liberal who started the practice, not Bush as you seem to imply) to spend it. In fact I agree with Sanders 100% on this, just think it's funny that a few weeks ago Obama was telling seniors they might not get their checks despite such a large surplus which could easily have covered the payments

You got my point brad.

Uh, yes. But apparently you didn't get mine.

if there is a $2.6 trillion surplus there was no reason to attempt to scare seniors into thinking they wouldn't get their checks, except to manipulate public opinion.

Did you fail to read the rest of my reply?? Was I unclear?? Social Security's current $2.6 trillion surplus is NOT kept in a "lockbox" as Gore wanted, but rather, its mingled with the rest of the general funds, allowing Presidents and Congress to loot the fund for other purposes. Therefore, instead of SS checks coming straight out of a real, lockboxed SS trust fund, they come out of the general funds which may, or may not have, had enough cash in them to pay SS recipients before other creditors who might have been deemed more crucial to pay first.

Was I confusing in my reply?? Because you seem to have understood none of it.

The rest of your drivel has nothing to do with my comment. It should be in a "lockbox" instead of allowing: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson (a liberal who started the practice, not Bush as you seem to imply) to spend it.

My comment about Bush had to do with the fact that when we had an overall budget surplus Gore wanted to ensure there would be no more looting from SS. But, instead, Bush looted, created huge government programs on a credit card, with no intention of paying them back, and now we're left with yutzes like you (and Obama) talking about cutting SS, even though the program remains solvent for at least 25 years into the future (unlike just about any business or govt. program in the world!)

In fact I agree with Sanders 100% on this, just think it's funny that a few weeks ago Obama was telling seniors they might not get their checks despite such a large surplus which could easily have covered the payments

Please go back and read both this reply and the previous one, before you prattle off the same, silly, unsupportable partisan nonsense yet again. Thanks.

look, there's either a surplus or there's not a surplus. Is the surplus IOU's? Or is the surplus money? If it's money, then it can be spent on what it's supposed to be spent on (checks for seniors and others) and much more to help cover the bills from us temporarily not being able to borrow trillions more. If it's IOU's, then it's NOT a surplus.

So let me get you straight here then.

If you made a profit of $5,000 this month by selling something, and put in a bank account, but then loan your mother $4,000 until next month to pay for her surgery (leaving you just $1,000 in your account this month until she pays you back next month) and then a bill, let's say your mortgage payment of $2,000, comes due immediately, but you can't pay it in full because she hasn't paid you back yet and you're not allowed to borrow anything (because someone has cut off your line of credit suddenly) --- then that means you didn't actually make a $5,000 profit selling things this month, right?

By your "logic" then, your Selling Things business is clearly a failure. It doesn't make a profit (run at a surplus) after all, because --- in a completely unrelated event from your actual business that seemed to otherwise be running a surplus of $5,000 a month --- you loaned $4,000 of that profit away.

Wingnut "Logic".

WingNutSteve @10 wrote:

look, there's either a surplus or there's not a surplus.

Steve, either you're as dumb as a rock or you are being intentionally obtuse. I suspect it's the latter.

If I have $100,000 in the bank, but my neighbor has access to my account and can remove money whenever he desires, then I can't depend upon the $100,000 to be there when I need it, can I?

That is precisely the situation with Social Security.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $2.6 trillion Social Security Trust Fund surplus, without any changes, is sufficient to pay out full benefits for the next 25 years, even without the changes proposed by Sen. Sanders.

However, that $2.6 trillion will not be sufficient to cover Social Security for the next 25 years if Presidents, Congress, or worse yet, Wall Street thieves are permitted to pilfer it through privatization schemes or to pay down a debt that Social Security did not create.

Hellooooo!

Brad, please explain to Ernie that there is not a lockbox, or a trust fund for that matter, which contains $2.6 trillion. I have never claimed there is, I was merely quoting Sanders who is making the foolish claim.

As for your scenario Brad, I believe you are looking at it backwards. The word "profit" was never mentioned by me and has nothing to do with my point. In your scenario, the $5000 is the surplus when the surplus is actually $1000 and a $4000 IOU from mom. A better more realistic twist would be if I had $5000 in a safe at my house (my surplus). I take $4500 from the safe to spend on a nice new computer set up, but I want to keep my surplus so I write an IOU to myself for $4500 and put it with my $500 I have left. Awesome! I still have a $5000 surplus! That's what our social security surplus is. Don't worry Ernie, wall street bankers aren't likely to take IOU's... but who knows withe those fuckers.

And I'll say again, I agree with Sanders, we need to protect the program at all costs for the good of our citizens. My last words on the subject, have a great weekend Brad.

This whole Lockbox rigamarole is ridiculous. What idiot would park $2.6T in a box, stagnant, letting inflation eat away at the principal?

So it ain’t sitting idle in a checking account, it’s invested, in government bonds, earning interest - to the tune of $117.5 billion last year.

WingNutSteve @15 wrote:

Brad, please explain to Ernie that there is not a lockbox, or a trust fund for that matter, which contains $2.6 trillion.

Once again, WingNutSteve swings and misses.

1. While there is no "lock box," there is a Social Security Trust Fund.

2. It is troubling that you did not bother click the link I provided in the article. If you had, you'd know that Sen. Sanders was not making a "foolish claim." Instead, the knowledgeable Senator from Vermont said [emphasis added]:

The only one who looks foolish, my WingNut friend, is you!

It is obvious that neither WingNutSteve nor Rick H. have a clue as to the purpose of a Social Security "lock box" either as proposed initially by Al Gore and recently repeated by Senate Democrats.

Wikipedia sets forth the basic problem.

The problem addressed by the lock box derives from continued government borrowing from the fund.

"The funds borrowed from worker contributions are part of the total national debt of $14.3 trillion as of March 2011. By 2015, the government is expected to have borrowed nearly $3.25 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund."

A "lock box" is intended to prevent politicians from raiding the Social Security Trust Fund for the purpose of paying down the national debt which debt was not created by Social Security but by government borrowing from Social Security.

Since the two of you seem incapable of understanding this without some comparison to individuals.

Suppose WingNutSteve borrows so much from the Bank of America that he can never repay it. Should WingNutSteve be entitled to demand money from the B of A in order to reduce his debt.

That is essentially what the GOP is proposing in looking to cut Social Security to pay down the national debt.

Um, I believe Bernie is proposing that the social security tax be applied to all incomes up to $250,000, not to all incomes over $250,000 (which is the option I would urge). Other than that, right on!

Thank you for bringing the conversation back full circle to my original comment Ernie which was to ask if there is $2.6 trillion in a trust fund why did Obama incite fear in the elderly by saying he was unsure if they would get their checks... If that fund exists then seniors should be able to know that their checks will come on time.

The only thing circular, WingNutSteve, is your reasoning.

You've already displayed your ignorance of the difference between a "lock box" and the Social Security Trust Fund.

You've erroneously claimed that Sen. Sanders was wrong when he said that the Trust Fund had a $2.6 trillion surplus.

Now you chose to ignore the fact that the surplus is based on what the government owes the Trust Fund because much of that surplus is based on what the U.S. government owes to the Social Security Trust Fund because the government has borrowed from the Fund.

It appears the point Brad made has repeatedly made, e.g @9:

Social Security's current $2.6 trillion surplus is NOT kept in a "lockbox" as Gore wanted, but rather, its mingled with the rest of the general funds, allowing Presidents and Congress to loot the fund for other purposes. Therefore, instead of SS checks coming straight out of a real, lockboxed SS trust fund, they come out of the general funds which may, or may not have, had enough cash in them to pay SS recipients before other creditors who might have been deemed more crucial to pay first.

While I mean no disrespect, I am still left to determine whether "you're as dumb as a rock or you are being intentionally obtuse."

Either you are incapable of grasping basic facts, or, you're intentionally posting disinformation in violation of this blog's rules.

Either way, I've grown weary of your nonsensical games.

WingnutSteve -

I appreciate that it would be very embarrassing for you --- considering how often you'd have to do it in response to the repeatedly debunked nonsense you continue posting in comments on one story after another --- but really, saying "Thanks, I was misinformed, appreciate your straightening me out with verifiable details" would seem to be much much easier for you. It might also go a long ways towards rebuilding what has become your reputation in comments here --- at least to those of us who do follow along.

Once again, Steve, you were just wrong. I'm sorry about that, but those are the facts. I appreciate that your partisan politicking here requires you to proffer what are usually long-ago-debunked talking points here. But my hope is that eventually, after you've been shown time and again just how shamefully your party is purposely disinforming you, that you'd finally figure out the one key fact that informs all others: The Republican Party, and its apparatchik, are really hoping to play you (and those like you) for chumps.

Just because they are, doesn't mean you need to fulfill their desires. I really do think you're better than that, otherwise you wouldn't likely still be here.

Brad, I've tried for this entire comment section to agree that we need to protect Social Security at any cost. Because of that I get the typical name calling, put words in my mouth, argument, declaration that I'm wrong, puffing out of your elitist chest, etc.

You change the subject to profits which has not a damn thing to do with surplus. You bring up lock box for which I get criticized by your compadre, who contradicts himself on trust funds. You back pedal on your typical Bush criticism saying "what I meant was..." and etc.

It's damn near impossible to have a discussion with two people who are so hard wired to argue and win EVERY argument at ANY cost. While you sometimes show a little respect it's incredibly obvious that Ernie is completely incapable of having civil discourse with anyone not "smart enough" to agree with his every word.

"It's my blog site, I win and you lose." That's a helluva way to operate. And you call ME partisan, what a fucking joke.

Re WingNutSteve @21.

What rubbish!

All that Brad or I did was to take the time to explain something to someone ("you") who is badly misinformed. We furnished you with links so you could verify whether the information we provided was accurate.

In short, we furnished a thoroughly misinformed individual with an education about the Social Security Trust Fund and why, absent placing it in a lock box, that Fund would be jeopardized if the Tea Tards had succeeded in forcing the government to default.

That is a far cry from:

"It's my blog site, I win and you lose."

Given the amount of disinformation that is spewed by the hard-right echo chamber, I was not all that troubled by you're being misinformed.

What I am troubled by, what I think borders on the unforgivable, is that when Brad and I took pains to provide verifiable information that disproved your mistaken beliefs, you lacked the courage to admit your error.

WingnutSteve -

Brad, I've tried for this entire comment section to agree that we need to protect Social Security at any cost. Because of that I get the typical name calling, put words in my mouth, argument, declaration that I'm wrong, puffing out of your elitist chest, etc.

Um, no. Because you determined to stick with your indefensible argument that Obama was lying, or some such, in regard to being able to make SS payments in the event that your party made good on their threat to force the nation into its first ever default. I'm fairly confident you know that.

Furthermore, while I don't believe I've either put words in your mouth or called you any names (Ernie may have), I have no idea what my "elitist chest" in reference to. "Elitist"?! How so? Because I offered a sound and well-supported argument you failed to (because you could not) rebut?? That makes me "elitist"?? Do you even know what the word means? Or you're just falling back on it, because that's what so many other wingnuts do when they don't have an actual argument to make?

You change the subject to profits which has not a damn thing to do with surplus.

Huh? I'll guess you're talking about this reasonable response above in which I tried, yet again, to explain the issue slowly and clearly to you, in which I used the example of a business making "a profit" or, as I said, "(run at a surplus)". I'm fairly certain you understood the analogy I offered.

You bring up lock box for which I get criticized by your compadre, who contradicts himself on trust funds. You back pedal on your typical Bush criticism saying "what I meant was..." and etc.

I saw neither any contradictions nor back pedaling (not even sure what "typical Bush criticism" you are referring to) in either my comments nor Ernie's. We've been consistent, persistent and patient in our attempt to explain --- over and again --- how you are simply wrong in your initial assertion. (Though, yes, Ernie is often much harsher than I in his rhetoric in reply.)

It's damn near impossible to have a discussion with two people who are so hard wired to argue and win EVERY argument at ANY cost.

While Ernie and I may both be fairly expert at argument, it is not a matter of "win[ning]...at ANY cost." It is a matter of trying, over and again, to make the same point until you finally either understand it, or, as is more likely the case, admit that you finally understand it.

"It's my blog site, I win and you lose." That's a helluva way to operate. And you call ME partisan, what a fucking joke.

Wow. Talk about "putting words into [ones] mouth." I said nothing of the sort. Nor did I bring any particular claim to ownership of this site to this argument. I'm sorry you couldn't win the debate, but it's unnecessary to make things up in response. As I suggested previously, the easier thing would be to say, "You're right, I was wrong this time."

Seriously. Think about.

Brad wrote @23:

Ernie is often much harsher than I in his rhetoric in reply.

True!

Perhaps, its an age thing. I've lost patience with those whom I've concluded are being less-than-candid in claiming not to understand when their erroneous statements are thoroughly refuted, especially when links are provided to verify refutation.

You, on the other hand, Brad, have displayed the patience of a saint only to be wrongly accused of "changing the subject," of being an "elitist" and of to trying to "win EVERY argument at ANY cost."

I know it is said that patience is a virtue, but sometimes I wonder...

My apologies! I misunderheard Bernie when he was talking to Thom Hartmann the other day. I'm still confused - do those making between 106K and 250K still get off with paying only on the first 106K? That hardly strikes me as fair. How come they get a break no one else gets? Can anyone clarify this for me?

Re Czaragorn @25:

I'm not sure why Bernie has exempted income between $106K and $250K. Perhaps it relates to spendable income of the upper middle class, which possibly is needed as a stimulus to the economy.

But I'm inclined to agree with you. Why not attach the Social Security tax to all incomes, including not only wages, but other forms of income, such as hedge funds?