Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (13257)	3/21/2012 2:00:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

But by your argument, what the hell difference does that make? It doesn't make a lot of difference, but you were claiming that it does have a surplus. You said the surplus meant for just this time wasn't a surplus at all - so if the surplus is not a surplus how can the deficit be a deficit? The tax can produce more (or less) than the spending program with the same name. If you want to call that a surplus (or deficit) fine. I don't think its a meaningful surplus or deficit. More importantly "SS has a surplus" (when it still did) isn't a defense of "SS isn't a major factor in the deficit". All large areas of spending are major factors in the deficit. But if you say it ALREADY has been blended! Depends on what you mean by blended. The account is separate. The actual money OTOH has been spent on other things. Formally its not blended. In reality it is in some ways. <<<<<Every dollar of spending drives the deficit by one dollar >>> EXCEPT SS. It has been self funded Including SS spending. SS spending isn't self funded. The fact that there is a tax with the same name, and created by the same law doesn't change that. Spending is spending. Every dollar spent increases the deficit by the same amount.