The Right Side of the News

Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. A case can be made to support your accusations of how you view her character, and I know that we here at EvC stick around here for a reason, rather than preferring other hangouts, other people, and a host of brand new personality quirks to learn about.The reason that I am responding to you this way at this moment in time has a lot to do with my own personality quirks, the people and events in my life at this moment whom I interact with and learn more about, and the goal(goals) that I have in mind for my own life.I wrote my response to you last night, after getting off a typical work shift at Safeway and dealing with many customers and a few shoplifters. One shoplifter, a regular, came in the store with an empty backpack and left with it full...bulging even. That quite naturally upset me--I take it personally when these events happen. This morning, I half-listened and half snoozed through one of the audio podcasts that I listen to on Alexa while I snooze. It was
What If I Find Other People Boring? and it stimulated my thinking on how a humanist views responsibility towards effective communication versus how myself, as a believer, traditionally viewed it and how I *should* view it--what issues within myself do I need work on. So then I come in the living room this morning and review EvC responses and here we are! I will answer you in my non-admin mode, as I feel that EvCs rules are a shared product of regular interaction between longtime Forum members and that we all violate them at times--thus no need for a Moderators position on this. Yes she does. I do the same thing. Some of us are more adaptable in our conversations than are others. I personally see Faith improving in some areas, but I note your reaction. Again, its all about interpretation. Have you ever heard the advice to "put yourself in the other guys shoes"? Think about what she is trying to defend, whether or not she fully understands it, and how she views her opponents here at the Forum and in conversations. I feel that many of us (myself included) get stuck in patterns and do not critically think about our positions. This leads to repetition. See, now this is where you get too personal. It is no lie that her eyesight is bad, and this is a personal attack. Love your enemies and adversaries. Heck, I even prayed for that darn shoplifter who caused my hackles to rise. It's not easy, but is it not basic good advice?By the way, I read a lot of the stuff on your page and find the overall effort commendable. I may not agree with everything you say, but I appreciate your effort to get it out there, sort of in a public diary form.Edited by Thugpreacha, : sub title

She isn't wearing shoes. She's wearing kleenex boxes.

You don't know shit about her health or shit about her. She is a liar and a troll and you are an enabler. How about you moderate her posts a little bit like you moderate people that criticize her? Won't hold my fucking breath.

The first thing to understand is that Justin Bogie isn't painting an accurate picture. That running count of the National Debt presented at the beginning of the video? Social Security does not contribute to it. (AbE: This last is incorrect. Social Security does not contribute to federal deficit but does to the national debt. This is explained in more detail in a later post.) The Social Security program is run outside the federal budget whose sum of debits and credits is the annual deficit. Social Security has not, does not, and will not contribute to the federal deficit under current law.There is one way in which Social Security does affect the federal deficit, which may be the kernel of truth at the core of Bogie's misrepresentation. All Social Security deductions (half from the employee, half from the employer) go into the Social Security trust funds (there are only two, retirement and disability). All payments made to Social Security recipients come out of those trust funds.But by law those trust funds are not allowed to hold any cash. All payroll deductions paid into the fund are used to purchase special issue Treasury securities on a daily basis. Monthly Social Security payments are made through the monthly sale of these securities.These Treasury securities held by the Social Security trust funds earn interest. The natural assumption is that the interest is paid into the trust funds, but that assumption would be incorrect. The interest paid by these securities is retained by the Treasury, in effect, is loaned to the Treasury by the Social Security trust funds.The loans of this interest to the Treasury reduces the deficit. This is worth emphasizing since it is a central detail ignored by Bogie. Interest earned each year by the trust funds reduces the deficit. The size of the trust funds is probably in the neighborhood of $2.8 trillion right now, which at 2% interest (long term treasuries are paying over 2% right now) means the trust funds are earning $56 billion in interest, thereby reducing the federal deficit by $56 billion (there's a flip side I describe in the paragraph below about when Social Security runs a deficit).The Treasury keeps track of how much has been loaned to it over the years by interest earned by the Social Security trust funds. I don't know how much that is, we're into pretty arcane details now and I wasn't able to find it online, but given that Treasury has been retaining the interest earned by the trust funds since sometime during the 1980's I'm going to guess that it's around a trillion dollars. But whatever the actual amount, it has decreased the national debt (the sum of all annual surpluses and deficits) by that amount.When Social Security runs a surplus, as it did up until 2018, then during the year it will have purchased more of these special issue Treasury securities than it sold. In surplus years the size of the Social Security trust funds increases, and all the interest earned by the securities is retained by the Treasury, reducing the deficit.But when Social Security runs a deficit, as it began doing in 2018, then the natural assumption is that it would sell more Treasury securities than it purchases, but that's not the way the law is written. The law requires that before Social Security sells more securities than it purchases that it must request the Treasury to pay back some of the retained interest. This rule maximizes the amount of securities held by the trust funds and thereby the interest earned. Only after all the interest retained by the Treasury has been paid back can the trust funds sell more securities than they purchase.This pay back of retained interest to the trust funds by the Treasury adds to the federal deficit, reversing what it subtracted from the deficit in prior years. So if, for example, the trust funds earned $60 billion in interest, and the Social Security deficit required the Treasury to pay the trust funds $100 billion of the interest they had retained from prior years, then the net contribution to the deficit would be $40 billion.You might say, "This is a crazy way to do things," and you'd be right. It was an accounting trick passed during the Reagan administration to use Social Security surpluses to make federal deficits (and the national debt) look smaller. Like I said, it was a trick that put that accumulated retained interest from the trust funds that would someday have to be paid back off to the side where it received little attention.This financial obligation of the Treasury to the Social Security trust funds through fiscal chicanery during the Reagan administration is not the fault of Social Security. This improper financial accounting of the interest from the Social Security trust funds did not exist before 1984 and should never have been put in place. Money spent on Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. Social Security's budget is independent from the federal budget. You're referring to this: Bogie is saying things that are untrue, for example this at time 4:30 (the above video is cued up to that time), in response to the question of how we eliminate the deficit:

quote:

---

Well, again, you have to focus on what's really driving the debt, and it's these huge programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. They're on a path to insolvency right now. They're already taking in less revenue than they're paying out. They still have some reserve funds built up, but eventually they're going to start running a deficit. Benefits are already on track to go down. So until you make those programs more sustainable, find ways to lower health care costs, then it's going to be hard to ever balance the budget.

---

When Bogie refers to "some reserve funds" he is referring to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds (Medicaid might have a trust fund, too, I don't know). The Social Security trust funds have that relationship with the Treasury I described above, where the Treasury retains all the interest earned by the Treasury securities owned by the trust funds. Bogie never mentions this, but it's the only way the deficit is affected by Social Security, it's an indirect relationship, and the Treasury is only paying to Social Security money it already owed to it.You could completely eliminate Social Security today and it would not affect the federal deficit one iota. Medicare and Medicaid are more a mixed bag.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

Duct tape a banana to the wall and collect $120,000! Art can be a capitalists golden goose.

Depends on how the banana is oriented .....

Here's your Justin Bogie video again: Bogie had only a five minute segment to make his points, so he may perhaps be forgiven for some of the misimpressions he conveyed, but Social Security does not contribute to the federal deficit. And Bogie ran right up to the border of misrepresentation and likely crossed it when in answer to the question about how to balance the budget he identified Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as the primary culprits. He was dead wrong to include Social Security as a contributor to the deficit, and he was only partly right to include Medicare. And funding of Medicaid is shared by the states and the federal government.Regarding the drawing down of the Social Security trust funds (the retirement trust fund is expected to be exhausted by 2035), there are three ways to fix it:

• Increase the Social Security payroll tax. This would place an undue burden on future workers.
• Increase the birth rate, currently at 1.8 (replacement rate is 2.1). This is very unlikely to happen.
• Increase immigration dramatically.

You have a stake in fixing Social Security if you expect to still be alive in 2035 when benefits will be cut by 20%, gradually increasing to 25%. See Analysis of the 2019 Social Security Trustees’ Report | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.--Percy

There is a simpler, fairer and faster fourth solution. Simply remove the Social Security Tax Limit.

I think you're responding to where I said that I can't buy the argument that low taxes are in general a disincentive to investment in the business, and you're responding: "Not incentivizing" and "disincentivizing" are not really synonymous, but in any case, about tax rates on the rich during the 1950's and 1960's, I don't see how that relates to corporate tax rates.I agree that corporate tax cuts won't necessarily increase employment, and I argued that exact point in Message 4795, saying that a corporation's opportunities for growth depend upon supply, demand and available workforce. I gave the example of Apple taking its tax savings and building another iPhone plant, which would be a waste unless there was also increased demand for iPhones.To make a side point, corporations with a lot of spare cash on hand have to decide what to do with the money. One mistake they make much more rarely than they used to when there were no opportunities for expansion within their own industry was to expand into or buy into other industries, transforming their corporation into a conglomerate. Successfully running a conglomerate is a tough row to hoe, and looking at the Fortune 500 just now there don't seem to be too many. Berkshire Hathaway is the only one in the top 10, and the next one is DuPont de Nemours at 35, and they're in the process of splitting up.All I'm saying is that we're fortunate that the burst in available corporate cash didn't spawn a bidding war to buy up other companies, thereby further inflating our already inflated stock prices. To make another side point, the current stock bubble will burst at some point, and many proud 401k holders will see a fair percentage of their unexpected windfall disappear. It's not possible to predict when.--Percy

Responding to both Message 4811 and Message 4812, I again agree that corporate tax rates are a poor way of influencing corporate investment.--Percy

You've been given a great deal of evidence that the impressions you received from the Bogie interview are incorrect. You have to address that evidence, but you haven't.You've also provided no evidence of your claim that Heritage Foundation analysts never mislead people, and given that people can often be misleading that seems unlikely in the extreme. You're being misled.For your position to carry any weight it must have evidence supporting it. You've provided no evidence. You have to do more than say things like, in effect, "Bogie said it, he works for the Heritage Foundation, that settles it," or "Kasraie said it, she's from Iran, that settles it," or "Trump said it, he's a great businessman, that settles it." You persistently set yourself up for being sold a bill of goods.--Percy

Well, like individual tax rates, corporate tax rates were higher in the 50's and 60's. The statutory corporate tax rate was higher than 50% in the 50's.
Seemingly you are not able to grasp the concept between high individual compensation, individual tax rates and corporate tax rates.All numbers I am using are for example and do not reflect real world tax rates. The concept remains the same.If the individual marginal tax rate maxes out at 33% for income over 10 million, companies will continue to pay CEO's and other execs exorbitant amounts of money, which is a redistribution of wealth to the top. If income over 10 million is taxed at a substantially higher rate, corporations will be less likely to pay them this exorbitant amount because such a high percentage of it will go toward taxes. Instead of paying it to a few individuals they should be incentivized to spread it around or invest in capital projects. Reinvest in the company(not stock buybacks). If their corporate tax rate is higher they are going to be incentivized to get that profit off the books by spending the money. The economy works by money moving around, not by the wealthy and corporations hoarding it.
Lower taxes on the very wealthy and corporations incentivize exorbitant pay to execs and stock manipulation. They do not create the number of jobs needed to offset the hit to tax revenue. Economic growth and tax revenues are helped more by higher taxes than lower. Of course there is a point where taxes can get too high and hinder economic growth. As we are at all time lows, I do not think we are anywhere near having that problem.Corporate tax rates and economic growth since 1947 | Economic Policy InstituteEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

The problem is that corporations and the wealthy have already figured out how to circumvent that issue by using stocks as the main incentives.CEO incomes intrinsically are often not very large, relatively speaking. Some CEOs actually taken a token '1 dollar a year' salary. But that is a canard to hide the fact that they own millions in shares.So if a CEO negotiates a contract whereby their salary is small and their stock compensation is high, they will circumvent any higher income tax rates since tax on dividends and stock sales is taxed differently.

This is incorrect, but I'm curious where you found this bit of misinformation. See History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia for more accurate information (Theodoric cited it, too). It says pretty much what I thought based upon my recollection of past readings of histories of The Depression.--Percy

The steady flow of false and misleading information from conservative talk show hosts conclusively demonstrates that they're very poor researchers. What they're good at is working you up so you keep coming back. You trust talk show hosts more than reporters? Even Fox News reporters? No wonder you're so misinformed. Levin exposed nothing. He was only pandering to the right-wing base. There you go with the pronouns again. What does "it" refer to? Any yet you can't cite any manufactured story, because like the conservative talk show hosts you love so much you're making it up. I think anyone who follows the rule "accept that for which there is evidence" will have the most accurate understanding of the world. You're never able to provide evidence for anything you say, and that's because it is made up.--Percy