Social Security is NOT At Risk On Debt Ceiling
That total debt number is the amount subject to the limit, more or less.
But the “Intragovernmental Holdings” is the amount that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are “owed” by the general fund.
The Treasury can redeem those by selling new bonds into the market in a 1:1 ratio and if they do so they now have dollars in an exactly equal amount.
That’s $4.6 trillion dollars.
How much is Social Security and Medicare every year? That’s easy – we can look at the Trustee report, which says that in 2010 the total expenditures were $1.235 trillion.
Note that these funds also receive tax monies and in 2010 they took in $1.267 trillion.
Wait a second…… they took in more than they spent? Indeed, which means that the only reason the Treasury has a problem in the present tense is that they have been stealing the tax revenues and replacing them with yet more IOUs.
(Note that due to the boomers retiring and medicare cost advances, which are relentless, both of these funds are bankrupt in the intermediate term. We’re talking about whether the money exists to pay benefits here and now, not in the future.)
But since those IOUs are counted in the total debt outstanding there is no reason whatsoever to state that Social Security “might” or “would” not be paid, other than as an intentional act of screwing Senior Citizens by Treasury and President Obama, for which they would both be personally responsible.
Let’s make sure you understand this:
THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF FUNDS TO PAY SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE UNDER THE EXISTING DEBT CEILING. IN FACT, TREASURY COULD PAY THOSE BENEFITS EVEN IF THERE WAS ZERO TAX COLLECTED FROM ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE – SUCH AS IF UNEMPLOYMENT WAS 100% – FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS, AND NOT VIOLATE THE DEBT CEILING.
President Obama and Tim Geithner are lying and their own data, from their own web sites and the Trustees proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Do not allow the fraudmasters of Washington DC to run their “tanks in the streets” lie once again.
This is simple: Raise the debt ceiling by as little as one dollar, lose your f%$#ing job.
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 
Harold,
IS there a way to contact you via this site? I have some questions for you.
Also…here is some info you might find important to put up on your blog:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011071314047/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/qfast-and-furiousq-scandal-making-cops-citizens-furious-fast.html
You are more than welcome to contact me at acgr@comcast.net
Most likely they will reach some kind of a deal. But, if they don’t, I agree with you that they will pay social security second. The first obligation is to pay the service on the debt, meaning whatever interest payments and bond repayments are due. Those are contractual legal obligations, and the consequences to the world markets of not paying would be enormous.
Social security is second. It is also a legal obligation, but not a contractual legal obligation. The consequences of not paying social security would also be enormous.
But, if they do pay those two things (and they can), then there are things that have to be cut, and that might be defense. meaning perhaps the salaries of soldiers. Stocks of defense contractors have been hit in recent days.
The issue of whether social security recipients can be paid out of existing revenues is not the same thing as whether or not social security will be cut. Eventually, it will have to be cut, because it is too expensive. The question is whether it will be cut abruptly or gradually and to what extent. Social security recipients are naturally irritated by the Republican position which holds, logically, that if there is a choice between eliminating special corporate tax breaks worth, say, $20 billion, and cutting Social Security by the same amount, the Social Security cut is the one that should be made. That is not to say that Social Security benefits should not be cut, gradually, but the idea of cutting social security while reducing taxes (and keeping corporate tax breaks) is putting the entire burden on the recipients of Social Security. And the same goes for other expenditures, like food stamps and government loans to college students.
If those programs have to be cut, there will be families that go hungry and students who have to quit college, and they will remember which party was responsible.