4 ms·

You said: "Things they want are non-discretionary, other things are discretionary." That simply isn't true. Things that are funded by an appropriations bill a

You said: "Things they want are non-discretionary, other things are discretionary." That simply isn't true. Things that are funded by an appropriations bill are considered discretionary because the level of funding they receive is up to the discretion of Congress. Things that are funded by a mandate are not considered discretionary because their funding is not up to the discretion of congress from year to year. The opinions of liberals or conservatives do not factor into which is considered which. There is a precise legal meaning here. It is not simply "a term the left made up". In addition to there being a legal distinction, there is also an accounting distinction. Medicare and social security, the two biggest non-discretionary expenditures by the federal government, come out of entirely different piles of money than discretionary expenditures do. Were you not aware of that? Your income taxes are not funding social security. Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. Cutting social security benefits would not free up more money to fund the things you think government should be doing. So, although I get that you do not like the nomenclature, I don't get how it makes some particular thought unthinkable. They are two different things. They should have two different names. It seems far more Orwellian to pretend like there isn't a legal difference between the two, simply because it would make achieving political goals you happen to find favorable easier. You seem to be under the impression we could take the money from social security or medicare and spend it on stuff you like better. Legally, that isn't true. So yes, in the sense that it would be totally freaking illegal, it is "unthinkable" to cut social security in order to lower income taxes. You might as well refer to calling animals "lions" and "tigers" as newspeak, because they make the thought that they are actually the same species of animal unthinkable. Well, they aren't the same species of animal. So it ain't newspeak, it's just nomenclature that you don't like. It is perfectly accurate to describe spending appropriated from the general fund as discretionary and social security as non-discretionary whether or not you like the terminology. They're two different things, one of which is up to the discretion of congress, one of which is not. Come up with a new term if you'd like. But you've strongly implied you think the two types of spending aren't different. That's not Orwellian -- that's you simply not understanding freshman high school civics. You also claimed that "discretionary spending" is a term the left made up. Are you going to post a citation for that, or admit you were wrong?

drjesusphd 11y ago
> Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. Actually, they kind of are. Considering that SS invests (solely?) in treasury bonds, which are then used to pay for programs. Much of the national debt is owed to Social Security.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Medicare and social security, the two biggest non-discretionary expenditures by the federal government, come out of entirely different piles of money than discretionary expenditures do. Were you not aware of that? Medicare and social security are paid for through income taxes. The trust fund is entirely a work of accounting fiction. It contains only IOUs from the government to itself. The system is built on a lie. When the system was originally put into place, benefits were paid out to people who never paid the tax. From day one the money collected from taxpayers went to paying the previous generation's benefits. It wasn't saved in a trust fund, it was spent. The only reason there is any surplus money at all is that the population has been expanding, so they collected tax from more people than collected benefits. If we allowed people to opt out of social security and everybody below retirement age did so then the "trust fund" would run out of money long before it paid out as much as it ostensibly owes to people, because most of the money those people paid has already been spent on previous retirees. But the remaining "trust fund" money was also spent. It's gone. They didn't invest it in real estate or shares of HP, they lent it to themselves and then spent it. The "trust fund" is a piece of paper that says the government owes itself money. > Your income taxes are not funding social security. My social security income taxes are funding social security for existing retirees. My federal withholding income taxes would fund social security in any year that the "trust fund" decreases in size, because that's where the rest of the money actually comes from. > Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. They do in any year that the "trust fund" increases in size. > Legally, that isn't true. The people who decide where the money goes are the people who make the law. A law can't be illegal. It could be unconstitutional, but I don't see any obvious reason why changing social security or medicare benefits would be unconstitutional. > Cutting social security benefits would not free up more money to fund the things you think government should be doing. It certainly would. Even if we keep the charade of separate accounting, reducing social security benefits would increase the size of the "trust fund" which serves as a long-term/perpetual debt sink for the rest of the government which allows the rest of the government to spend the money in present day and pay it back arbitrarily long in the future (or, as has historically been the case, never). Or if you prefer to look at it more directly, reducing both social security benefits and social security taxes would allow withholding taxes to be increased in the same amount without changing the total amount of money the government takes out of the taxpayer's paycheck. You can't actually borrow money from yourself. You can do all the paperwork you like but at the end of the day the credit and the debit cancel out.

drjesusphd 11y ago

> Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. Actually, they kind of are. Considering that SS invests (solely?) in treasury bonds, which are then used to pay for programs. Much of the national debt is owed to Social Security.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> Medicare and social security, the two biggest non-discretionary expenditures by the federal government, come out of entirely different piles of money than discretionary expenditures do. Were you not aware of that? Medicare and social security are paid for through income taxes. The trust fund is entirely a work of accounting fiction. It contains only IOUs from the government to itself. The system is built on a lie. When the system was originally put into place, benefits were paid out to people who never paid the tax. From day one the money collected from taxpayers went to paying the previous generation's benefits. It wasn't saved in a trust fund, it was spent. The only reason there is any surplus money at all is that the population has been expanding, so they collected tax from more people than collected benefits. If we allowed people to opt out of social security and everybody below retirement age did so then the "trust fund" would run out of money long before it paid out as much as it ostensibly owes to people, because most of the money those people paid has already been spent on previous retirees. But the remaining "trust fund" money was also spent. It's gone. They didn't invest it in real estate or shares of HP, they lent it to themselves and then spent it. The "trust fund" is a piece of paper that says the government owes itself money. > Your income taxes are not funding social security. My social security income taxes are funding social security for existing retirees. My federal withholding income taxes would fund social security in any year that the "trust fund" decreases in size, because that's where the rest of the money actually comes from. > Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. They do in any year that the "trust fund" increases in size. > Legally, that isn't true. The people who decide where the money goes are the people who make the law. A law can't be illegal. It could be unconstitutional, but I don't see any obvious reason why changing social security or medicare benefits would be unconstitutional. > Cutting social security benefits would not free up more money to fund the things you think government should be doing. It certainly would. Even if we keep the charade of separate accounting, reducing social security benefits would increase the size of the "trust fund" which serves as a long-term/perpetual debt sink for the rest of the government which allows the rest of the government to spend the money in present day and pay it back arbitrarily long in the future (or, as has historically been the case, never). Or if you prefer to look at it more directly, reducing both social security benefits and social security taxes would allow withholding taxes to be increased in the same amount without changing the total amount of money the government takes out of the taxpayer's paycheck. You can't actually borrow money from yourself. You can do all the paperwork you like but at the end of the day the credit and the debit cancel out.