Get rid of Social Security now?

[flacaltenn]

[Hey Mikey.. You BELIEVE that Mother Jones crap?? There are 4 lies in THEIR Venn diagram. The largest being that social security is invested in Treasury Bonds.. There is NOTHING OF VALUE in Trust Fund.. The prospectus from SSA says so...

And the financing HAS BEEN EXTREMELY fraudulent.. Involving thefts of the surplus from the working poor for decades, poor and criminal management of the revenue stream and outright to LYING to people about the Trust Fund..

I'll lay off the analog to a Ponzi scheme it's different and ways MORE TRAGIC than a Ponzi scheme. But you need to lay off the blatant propaganda and distortions that your belief is based on...

It's broke-ass NOW.. Six years ahead of schedule and NOTHING to fund the deficit is coming out "Treasury Bonds" or the fund. The cost of the overruns are being covered by the 53% of Americans that actually pay INCOME tax. The rest are getting carried out of "good will"...

You can continue deluding yourself with that Chicken-Little propaganda if you wish. Meanwhile my monthly Social Security allotment was deposited in my checking account yesterday morning, as it has been every month for the past eleven years, and everything I've heard from SSA and from a veritable platoon of respected experts assures me the program is secure and intact. The negatives come largely from pissed-off neo-Conservatives and is wishful thinking for the most part.

Social Security is backed by the federal government. When the Social Security allotments can't be paid it will mean we have a lot more to be concerned with than that. It will mean the government is broke -- wiped out. If it were otherwise, how do you think it would work out if Government was broke but Social Security was still intact? Can you imagine that scenario?

So what I have to say is you stay with Wall Street and I'll stay with what I have. And I wish you luck.

PS: How do you know so much about what is and isn't invested in the program? And if you refute the Venn data, show us your conflicting data. Otherwise you're blowing smoke.

Awww Mikey -- I swear we've done this before and you lost.. Lemme remind you..

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Social Security’s annual surpluses
of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this
year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession,
and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow
deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires.


The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2016, net revenue
flows from the general fund would total $369 billion (1.8 percent of
GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2016 for OASDI, and started in
2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the
trust funds when assets are depleted to help pay benefits in years prior to
exhaustion of the funds. Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Except this was from 2009 and they BLEW the projection by about six years since SS went into DEFICIT in 2010 after YOUR Dear Leader started STEALING from the FICA premiums.

I'd be happier if Soc Sec was solvent when the GOVT was broke -- because if you haven't noticed ---- IT IS !!! RIGHT NOW !!!! Broke..

Do you DOUBT that there's nothing of value in the Trust FUnd? Do you QUESTION the Mother Jones lie that Soc Sec is "invested in Treasury Bonds?" Are you that far duped???

Congressional Research Service
January 27, 1991

Perhaps the biggest misconception is that the social security trust funds represent actual resources to be used for future benefit payments, rather than what is in reality a promise by the Government to take steps necessary to secure resources from the economy at
that time.

Granny needs to read that too..... And AARP needs to STFU...

 

[MikeK]

Awww Mikey -- I swear we've done this before and you lost.. Lemme remind you..

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Social Security’s annual surpluses
of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this
year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession,
and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow
deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires.


The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2016, net revenue
flows from the general fund would total $369 billion (1.8 percent of
GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2016 for OASDI, and started in
2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the
trust funds when assets are depleted to help pay benefits in years prior to
exhaustion of the funds. Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Except this was from 2009 and they BLEW the projection by about six years since SS went into DEFICIT in 2010 after YOUR Dear Leader started STEALING from the FICA premiums.

I'd be happier if Soc Sec was solvent when the GOVT was broke -- because if you haven't noticed ---- IT IS !!! RIGHT NOW !!!! Broke..

Do you DOUBT that there's nothing of value in the Trust FUnd? Do you QUESTION the Mother Jones lie that Soc Sec is "invested in Treasury Bonds?" Are you that far duped???

Congressional Research Service
January 27, 1991

Perhaps the biggest misconception is that the social security trust funds represent actual resources to be used for future benefit payments, rather than what is in reality a promise by the Government to take steps necessary to secure resources from the economy at
that time.

Granny needs to read that too..... And AARP needs to STFU...

This negative assessment is nothing new. And it's been addressed before, several times, but each time in a quiet and relatively gentle manner by a Congress which has traditionally regarded Social Security as the "third rail of politics" and remains reluctant to make what are predictably necessary adjustments.

One such adjustment has already been made by Obama in 2010 in the form of a moratorium on cost-of-living adjustments. Prior adjustments have taken the form of a minimal increase in eligibility age. Future adjustments will need to be made because of the reasons stipulated in the report, but by no means does this herald the demise of the program or a significant reduction in distributed benefits.

It is likely that another adjustment in eligibility age will be necessary, which undoubtedly will bring about howls of outrage from your side of the aisle. But when we consider the increase in life expectancy brought about by advances in medical science since the program was instituted in 1935 the increases imposed to date have been extremely minimal. My response to those who complain loudly about them is there should be a choice between increased eligibility age and decreased life expectancy and see what they have to say.

Another adjustment which will be made in the event of serious shortcomings in the fund would be a decrease in benefits of 10% to 13% which will not have a seriously negative effect on the majority of recipients. Also, a means test has been suggested to withhold or adjust allotment to those whose income or net worth excludes or modifies the need for the full supplement. Because Social Security is in fact an insurance program, not an investment program, the situation is analogous to auto insurance which pays off only when there is actual cause and only in proportion to actual requirement.

So I suggest that budding Wall Street investment wizards like you will be doing so well in the future you will have little to no need for a Social Security supplement to your massive dividend checks and vast holdings. But if, as the best laid plans of mice and men tend to do, your plans don't work out as you presently intend, you will have your monthly Social Security check to butter your morning bread.

So, once again, good luck to you on your way to the land of One Percent.

(Excerpt)

The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security’s annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires.

The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083.

(Close)

The above implies that we have more than fifty years to either improve the economy or decide on which path of adjustment to take to avoid a one-fourth reduction in benefits.

Hardly a doomsday scenario and you should be pleased to learn the sky really isn't falling.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Given the fact that the above statistics I cited you are true, and the fact that over 50% of Americans do not save money, someone like yourself would be the exception and not the rule. So lets say for a moment you did save that 15% over your lifetime, and the so called " slush" fund as you call it wasn't there, you would quickly find your savings eaten alive by higher state and local taxes, costs for medical expenses, and whole host of expenses that will be higher as a result of Americans that have no savings being taken care of by the state in which you live. Again, your taxes go to pay for a whole host of things you may or may not agree with, including everything from roads, dams, missiles, ships, jets, and social security, the point is thats the price you and I pay for being American citizens, if our society wished to be one where everyone was on their own and there was no shared respoinsibility then we would all be individually responsible for our own highways, defending our own nation, cleaning our own water, making sure our food is safe, etc. in the end if you were to take on the burden of all that , you would have no savings to worry about nor would you have a nation to worry about as well.

Oh, so if it were not for the mere pittance of Social Security, all would be lost?
The problem with liberals is you people are faithless dolts. You have zero confidence in your fellow humans to be anything but helpless.
I have heard this song before. You people who think the rest of us cannot be trusted with our own finances. That based on the lowest common denominator made up by a small minority of people who are too stupid to turn the lights on so they don't kick the fucking vacuum cleaner...
Look, social security is NOT nor was it ever intended to be something on which one lives. It is a SUPPLEMENT.
That is not the problem. The whole thing needs to be blown up and remade. Remade into a savings vehicle where the government can touch NOT ONE STINKING DIME of it. Each person pays into their OWN account. An account from which each person or in the event of their passing, a designee gets to draw from with certain limits.
The American people were fucked when the federal government gave itself the right to steal our SS money. THAT is why the system is on the verge of collapse. And that is why it sucks.
The real issue is there are just enough people who would rather eat the crumbs of the stolen bread, than go get the bread back from the cock sucker that took it.

First you assume that I am a liberal because I posted facts on Social Security, so be it, however, I have been a member of the Republican party longer than you have been alive more than likely. All that aside for a moment , I might suggest you re-read my postings , I have suggested that Social Security has been used for what it was NOT intended for and that is a funding source for all other programs within the Federal Govt. from buying Shovels, to put Sand in the sandtraps at NAS Pensacola. My point is that without Social Security those who think that all will be great because they will have control over their own savings are fooling themselves into believing that costs will remain the same. Right now according to the SSA there about 56 Million Americans on Social Security and without it, those Americans will be a burden on the states and in turn for everyone in those states , in the form of higher taxes, higher costs. etc. So that 15 % you pay now, which will be saved, will rapidly be absorbed and much more should those people now become the responsibility of the states. So what your advocating is that someones 86 year old Grandfather who is somehow taking from you personally, who most likely worked all their lives , served this nation , is taking from you. Well my friend those people are the very shoulders in which you stand on that built this nation. I agree with you that Social Security should not be used as a slush fund for the Federal Govt. to use to spend on whatever they choose . However nothing is stopping you or anyone else from having a savings account or investing to offset your savings when you retire. The bottom line is this, our nation thrives because we all share a common responsibility to support it, for those who want this let veryone go their own way, keep this in mind, no indivudual ever stormed the beach on D Day by themselves or landed on the moon by themselves, or for that matter built this nation by themselves, without the help of millions of other Americans sharing in that responsibility. So those taxes you and I pay into Social Security are our responsibility as American citizens to share in this nation, and while you have every right to disagree with that, I suggest that if you want to change it , then start by voting for those who agree with you to make those changes.

The only fact regarding SS is it's broken. Period.
As for the rest of your post....Typical straw man argument. D-Day? Moon landings?..
Our nation thrives not because of government..It thrives because of freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty gives us the ability to do whatever we want to the best of our ability.
It is not government from which this nation derives it's greatness. Greatness begins with the people of this nation.
Now, your comment regarding savings and investment in the context of SS is spot on. SS was NEVER intended to be a pension or a stipend on which one can live. It is a supplement.
It is a good concept. In practice it sucks.
SS is merely a tax. The return is no more than a government run Ponzi scheme. Those presently working pay the benefits of those retired. As workers enter the workforce, their money is collected for use by older workers when they retire.
The system in it's current form is not sustainable.

 

[Contumacious]

Social Security is a socialist scam and should have never been adopted.

Unfortunately the welfare/warfare state has been forcing Americans, under penalty of law, to contribute.

While I agree that the Ponzi scheme should be abolished, those 50 and older should be compensated. Federal lands or other federal property should be sold to compensate those who were victimized by DC..

If Social Security is a "scam" I, and many millions of other working class Americans, probably including your parents and grandparents, have benefited substantially from it. ]

Excuse moi Vern.

Scammers always profit from their schemes. Ask Bernard Madoff.

.

.

 

[flacaltenn]

Awww Mikey -- I swear we've done this before and you lost.. Lemme remind you..

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Social Security’s annual surpluses
of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this
year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession,
and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow
deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires.


The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2016, net revenue
flows from the general fund would total $369 billion (1.8 percent of
GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2016 for OASDI, and started in
2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the
trust funds when assets are depleted to help pay benefits in years prior to
exhaustion of the funds. Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Except this was from 2009 and they BLEW the projection by about six years since SS went into DEFICIT in 2010 after YOUR Dear Leader started STEALING from the FICA premiums.

I'd be happier if Soc Sec was solvent when the GOVT was broke -- because if you haven't noticed ---- IT IS !!! RIGHT NOW !!!! Broke..

Do you DOUBT that there's nothing of value in the Trust FUnd? Do you QUESTION the Mother Jones lie that Soc Sec is "invested in Treasury Bonds?" Are you that far duped???

Congressional Research Service
January 27, 1991

Perhaps the biggest misconception is that the social security trust funds represent actual resources to be used for future benefit payments, rather than what is in reality a promise by the Government to take steps necessary to secure resources from the economy at
that time.

Granny needs to read that too..... And AARP needs to STFU...

This negative assessment is nothing new. And it's been addressed before, several times, but each time in a quiet and relatively gentle manner by a Congress which has traditionally regarded Social Security as the "third rail of politics" and remains reluctant to make what are predictably necessary adjustments.

One such adjustment has already been made by Obama in 2010 in the form of a moratorium on cost-of-living adjustments. Prior adjustments have taken the form of a minimal increase in eligibility age. Future adjustments will need to be made because of the reasons stipulated in the report, but by no means does this herald the demise of the program or a significant reduction in distributed benefits.

It is likely that another adjustment in eligibility age will be necessary, which undoubtedly will bring about howls of outrage from your side of the aisle. But when we consider the increase in life expectancy brought about by advances in medical science since the program was instituted in 1935 the increases imposed to date have been extremely minimal. My response to those who complain loudly about them is there should be a choice between increased eligibility age and decreased life expectancy and see what they have to say.

Another adjustment which will be made in the event of serious shortcomings in the fund would be a decrease in benefits of 10% to 13% which will not have a seriously negative effect on the majority of recipients. Also, a means test has been suggested to withhold or adjust allotment to those whose income or net worth excludes or modifies the need for the full supplement. Because Social Security is in fact an insurance program, not an investment program, the situation is analogous to auto insurance which pays off only when there is actual cause and only in proportion to actual requirement.

So I suggest that budding Wall Street investment wizards like you will be doing so well in the future you will have little to no need for a Social Security supplement to your massive dividend checks and vast holdings. But if, as the best laid plans of mice and men tend to do, your plans don't work out as you presently intend, you will have your monthly Social Security check to butter your morning bread.

So, once again, good luck to you on your way to the land of One Percent.

(Excerpt)

The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security’s annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires.

The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083.

(Close)

The above implies that we have more than fifty years to either improve the economy or decide on which path of adjustment to take to avoid a one-fourth reduction in benefits.

<<<FlacalTenn says <<<BULLSHIT MIKEY>>>

Hardly a doomsday scenario and you should be pleased to learn the sky really isn't falling.

You're STILL POSTING LIES Mikey.. Like what I bolded above. You are a useful PARROT... There ARE NO TRUST FUND ASSETS TO REDEEM.. It's a MASSIVE FRAUD that you're helping to perpetrate.. So whatever OTHER observations you have are useless until you acknowledge there was MASSIVE THEFT of surpluses, NO INVESTMENTS MADE, and NOTHING of value in the Trust Fund..

When you get to that point -- I'll listen to your solutions...

 

[MikeK]

You're STILL POSTING LIES Mikey.. Like what I bolded above. You are a useful PARROT... There ARE NO TRUST FUND ASSETS TO REDEEM.. It's a MASSIVE FRAUD that you're helping to perpetrate.. So whatever OTHER observations you have are useless until you acknowledge there was MASSIVE THEFT of surpluses, NO INVESTMENTS MADE, and NOTHING of value in the Trust Fund..

When you get to that point -- I'll listen to your solutions...

What you listen to is of no consequence to me because you are just one more right-wing, schadenfreude-affected nobody for whom wishing the worst for others is a source of pleasure. You have that in common with Rush Limbaugh, the main difference being Limbaugh gets rich spreading his fallacious propaganda while your best effort is confined to an anonymous presence on an Internet forum where you get off regurgitating the nonsense he and others like him pump into your brain.

But for the benefit of any who might be swayed by the doomsday nonsense you put forth here, the following is excerpted from the current Social Security Administration Trustees' Report.

(Excerpt)

Social Security&#8217;s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

(Close

Read the full report here: Trustees Report Summary

So, while there is a projected shortfall expected in 2020, which could be resolved by a one-fourth reduction in disbursements, that shortfall can (and probably will) be avoided by imposing any or all of several possible adjustments, which include an increase in FICA contributions, an increase in eligibility age, elimination of the contributions cap, or a means test. And there is plenty of time between now and 2020 to decide which path to take.

So you and the rest of your pathetic species of malicious Chicken-Littles are free to continue spewing your wishful thinking to all who are dumb enough to believe it. Meanwhile, stay tuned on the first of each month and I will let you know when the welcome Social Security supplement fails to show up in my checking account -- as it faithfully has for the past eleven years.

But as the saying goes, don't hold your breath.

 

[Oddball]

Read the full report here: Trustees Report Summary

Uh-huh....Nothing screams "credibility" like the people who have let the politicians piss away all the cash reserves of the cynically dubbed "trust fund", telling us that everything is just peachy!

Wow...Just wow.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're not getting it MIKEY>>> There ARE NO ASSETS TO REDEEM as stated in your quote above. It's all ACCOUNTING FICTION...

Lemme pass this by you again.. From the horses mouth....

Quote:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/histor...r09summary.pdf

Social Security’s annual surpluses
of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this
year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession,
and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow
deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires.


The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2016, net revenue
flows from the general fund would total $369 billion (1.8 percent of
GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2016 for OASDI, and started in
2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the
trust funds when assets are depleted to help pay benefits in years prior to
exhaustion of the funds. Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public

We need to get past the LYING and MISREPRESENTATION before YOU can determine what needs to be done to fix it...

No wonder leftists don't like making their own decisions and investments. MOST of them like Mikey can't read the FINE PRINT in the perspectus.. They are essentially economically illiterate and prone to being robbed..

 

[flacaltenn]

Mikey --- you need to recognize the DOUBLE SPEAK in that "treasurer's report" to make it JIVE with the TRUTH I posted above which is found in a small disclaimer at the END of the 2009 SSA treasurers report. It was put there so Bureaucrats could protect their asses from being called outright liers. It's probably there in EVERY SSA Annual Report..

From your link...

Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits.

NOTE ---- It doesn't say "redemption of Treasury Bonds HELD in the Trust Fund --- (there aren't any)

NOTE --- It doesn't say redemption of assets of ANY KIND from the Trust Fund..

NOTE --- NOTHING OF VALUE is IN the Trust Fund. It's all paid for by CURRENT INCOME TAX payers and FUTURE chinese bond holders..

There ARE NOT ASSETS in the Trust Fund -- you are reading 1st Class Propaganda...

 

[MikeK]

NOTE ---- It doesn't say "redemption of Treasury Bonds HELD in the Trust Fund --- (there aren't any)

NOTE --- It doesn't say redemption of assets of ANY KIND from the Trust Fund..

NOTE --- NOTHING OF VALUE is IN the Trust Fund. It's all paid for by CURRENT INCOME TAX payers and FUTURE chinese bond holders..

There ARE NOT ASSETS in the Trust Fund -- you are reading 1st Class Propaganda...

Okay. The Treasury is empty. Government is broke. The Social Security program trustees don't want us to know that so they are feeding us carefully phrased lies so we won't catch on to the truth.

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

 

[flacaltenn]

NOTE ---- It doesn't say "redemption of Treasury Bonds HELD in the Trust Fund --- (there aren't any)

NOTE --- It doesn't say redemption of assets of ANY KIND from the Trust Fund..

NOTE --- NOTHING OF VALUE is IN the Trust Fund. It's all paid for by CURRENT INCOME TAX payers and FUTURE chinese bond holders..

There ARE NOT ASSETS in the Trust Fund -- you are reading 1st Class Propaganda...

Okay. The Treasury is empty. Government is broke. The Social Security program trustees don't want us to know that so they are feeding us carefully phrased lies so we won't catch on to the truth.

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

Whoa there.. I didn't say anything about the Treasury or the govt being broke. That's a whole other onion to cry over.. But you are 100% correct that the Trust Fund IS A "carefully crafted" lie and obviously it's worked on YOU and Granny and a lot of folks..

Not like the truth wasn't out there for AGES -- you lefties just did one of those cute 3 monkeys "see no, hear no, speak no" deals..

Newsday
March 5, 1995

Such use of Social Security revenues, as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) once said, is theft.... By making the deficit appear to be $70 billion smaller than it actually is, this "embezzlement" of your FICA contributions (a word used by the late Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania) also reduces pressure to increase income taxes on wealthier Americans.

Sacramento Bee
March 13, 1995

The fraud is bipartisan. In the Senate debate, some Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, explained they couldn't vote for a balanced-budget amendment that didn't include a protection against "raiding" the surplus in the Social Security trust fund. In reply,
Republican proponents offered assurances that they wouldn't touch the trust fund. What neither side would admit was the truth: that the Social Security trust fund doesn't really exist.

Knight-Ridder/The [Bergen] Record
August 11, 1996

When businesswoman Dorcas Hardy became Social Security commissioner in 1986, she gave speeches around the country reassuring everyone in the audience that the system would be there for them. As she learned more, Hardy changed her stump speech. Audiences of senior citizens still got a blanket assurance. To younger people, Hardy limited her promise by saying the system would be sound until 2010 or so....

Hardy now calls Social Security a "chain letter, with the baby boomers holding the broken end of the chain." "We have told people it will be there forever," Hardy says. "We have told people that it's insurance. We have put myths together that have become the foundation for a religion of Social Security. Some would say that's fraudulent behavior, although I don't think that's the intent."

The Washington Post
January 3, 1992

"We ought to call it Social Insecurity, not Social Security," Dorcas R. Hardy, the former Social Security commissioner, writes in her new book. "The Social Security system is a ticking time bomb. In the next century, the United States will face a potentially devastating crisis: The retirement checks that should be sent to benefit millions of Americans will not
be there." . . .

"When the Treasury is in deficit," as it is now, "this leads to a shell game," she contends. "The Treasury siphons the money off to pay for current government operations, and in exchange, it gives Social Security an IOU. When the IOU comes due, there will be no money in the Treasury to pay it off, so one way or another, at that point Congress will have to raise revenue" from general taxes or sale of general bonds to pay off the IOU.

Speaker Newt Gingrich
Nationally televised address
April 7, 1995

In fact, the money the government has supposedly been putting aside from the Baby Boomers' Social Security taxes is not there. The government has been borrowing the money to pay for the budget deficit. The Social Security Trust Fund is simply IOUs from the U.S.
Treasury.... [Social Security] would be fine if the government would stop borrowing the money.

Senator Phil Gramm (A-Texas)
The Reuter Transcript Report
May 13, 1993

[Regarding a proposed "deficit reduction trust fund" plan:] . . . [W]hat the president has presented in its simplest form is the idea that says we'll take new taxes, we'll put them in a trust fund, and by doing so, we will guarantee that the money is not spent and that the deficit is reduced. I think anybody who knows anything about the American budget knows that that is fraudulent. We have a highway trust fund, and yet every day those trust funds are counted toward deficit reduction, and in a very reel sense they're spent on other
things. We have a Social Security trust fund, and yet that trust fund buys government debt, frees up resources that the government every day spends on something else. We have an airport trust fund. Exactly the same thing happens. I think the average taxpayer can simply ask themself the following question: if they take a coin out of one pocket end put it into another, does that make them richer or does it guarantee that they're not going to spend the coin?


Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-South Carolina)
Congressional Record
April 24, 1991

The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has already been stripped bare. There is no trust and no fund.

It is a lot like the S&Ls. The savings and loans had a lot of real estate on the books, a lot of property, a lot of shopping centers, a lot of deposits, and everything else, until you looked inside and found out there was nothing there. The assets were mostly on paper....
Meanwhile, the Social Security cupboard is bare.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York)
quoted by Steve Gerstel UPI
December 29, 1989

Sen. Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y., called Friday for a return to pay-as-you-go financing of Social Security benefits, which he said would create a $55 billion tax cut in 1991.

Moynihan said he would introduce legislation to revamp the financing system when Congress returns Jan. 23, saying that efforts to persuade the White House against using the Social Security trust fund to cut the deficit have failed. "It is clear that the administration plans to use the trust fund on an ongoing basis as general revenues," Moynihan said. "There is a word for it—it is thievery."

Ross Perot
at "A National Town Meeting" (ABC News)
June 29, 1992

Peter Jennings: So you think a tax increase is inevitable?

Ross Perot: No, I don't think it's inevitable at all. An increase in taxes is like having a cocaine addict that's in a detox center and just giving him a little every day so he feels better. You follow me? Deficit spending is addictive. We've got to stop this practice as a country.
No, it's not inevitable, not at all. We've got to put some discipline in the system, as opposed to just spending our children's money spending the Social Security trust fund money, see. Nothing is more rotten than that, and we're doing that right now and we're pretending we're not.

Congressional Research Service
January 27, 1991

Perhaps the biggest misconception is that the social security trust funds represent actual resources to be used for future benefit payments, rather than what is in reality a promise by the Government to take steps necessary to secure resources from the economy at that time.

Or maybe getting it from one of your heroes would make it less painful..

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/01/tax-the-rich-to-repay-looted-social-security-money/


In 1990, Reid, along with a few other senators, was trying to protect the future of Social Security by telling the truth about it. In a speech on the Senate floor, on October 9, 1990, Senator Reid made the following statement:

The discussion is are we as a country violating a trust by spending Social Security trust fund money’s for some purpose other than for which they were intended. The obvious answer is yes…On that chart in emblazoned red letters is what has been taking place here, embezzlement. During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources. One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.
Senator Reid was right in denouncing the raiding of the trust fund in 1990, but he didn’t follow through with his battle. Once he got into a leadership position, he abandoned his fight to end the looting and just ignored the illegal practice after that.

And thousands of more clear thinking admissions that the emperor really is stark naked.

You SHOULD actually be feeling a little ANGRY to find this out --- if you truly were unaware of the facts.. That's why I'm gonna attempt to comfort you now with the other fact --- and that is that NO ONE is suggesting to remove SS as a program. There are however a lot of folks who are economically literate that truly want to fix it without turning it into a means tested welfare basket case..

 

[flacaltenn]

MikeK::::::

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

Only disclosure I want to make about my age -- is that I haven't yet seen a penny of Soc Sec.. And I expect to take a HUGE loss on my investment in it.. BECAUSE you have already RAISED the caps on income to the point where some folks are paying 10 times what others contribute in FICA.

And you want to raise them some more? AND who is it that has the back-breaking jobs and shouldn't be asked to WORK for a few more years? Bankers? Day Traders? Why that would be mostly lower wage workers and the working poor.. Good Job lefties.

We've got 2 choices for the future..

1) Cut the crap.. Stop pretending it's UNIVERSAL and FDR loved it that way.. Just turn it into another welfare program and means test it all to hell. Then the politicians can ignore COLAs just like they do today and let it fester like the Min Wage.

2) Put peoples NAME on their accounts. It's NOT just insurance anymore -- it's an HONEST retirement fund. It can be transferred to your heirs -- It's yours. Folks who are TOO DUMB OR INCAPABLE can opt to take it TOTALLY in govt bonds. (good luck with that).

NOTHING Is gonna happen to current retirees --- but BRIGHTER MINDS and HONEST politicians need to fix it -- in order to preserve it..

 

[Jarlaxle]

When an individual client exceeds life expectancy by more than a little bit he'll make more off the annuity than he put in. But it doesn't cost the insurance company really because its paid for by the clients who didn't make life expectancy and put more in than they got out.

That's kinda the point of the bet. You transfer the risk that you'll live very long and need income far into old age to the insurance company. In exchange, they take a little profit, and if you don't make life expectancy, they keep the difference.

Social Security works the same way. Its not a savings account. Its an insurance program.

Actually, no, it's a Ponzi scheme.

I've never heard of a Ponzi scheme that has lasted 75+ years and which had as its main source of revenue a share of the taxes of the biggest economy on Earth.

You're an idiot.

Social Security is the EPITOME of a Ponzi scheme...but the government can keep changing the rules and cooking the books to keep it going!

If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would be twice as smart as you actually are.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Romney and Ryan want to save Medicare and Social Security, but scumbag liberals run around telling the world they really want to get rid of it.

Romney says on TV that people over 55 won't have a change in their Medicare, but then Obamination steps up to the plate and lies about what Romney just said. You either have to be an idiot or a scumbag to believe Obamination putting words in Romney's mouth.

Obamination must think he has some Jedi mind trick capability. These are not the droids you are looking for....

 

[Jarlaxle]

The AARP says you are a brainwashed idiot. Read something.

In your case, it seems to have been less of a brain wash and more of a light rinse.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Social Security is a socialist scam and should have never been adopted.

Unfortunately the welfare/warfare state has been forcing Americans, under penalty of law, to contribute.

While I agree that the Ponzi scheme should be abolished, those 50 and older should be compensated. Federal lands or other federal property should be sold to compensate those who were victimized by DC..

If Social Security is a "scam" I, and many millions of other working class Americans, probably including your parents and grandparents, have benefited substantially from it. I wish there were some other "scams" like it I could particpate in.

And since you are among those few bitter and misinformed right-wing acolytes who believe Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, you should read these articles and educate yourself so you'll no longer be disillusioned by that embarrassing bit of propaganda.

To the people who got in and out early, Bernie Madoff's "investments" were great! Like all Ponzi schemes, the ones that get in early make out...the ones that get in later get reamed. You got in early and are now a happy little parasite, suckling off the public tit.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, investing in a portfolio is a freaking brilliant idea! I'll put the money right next to all our 401K money that we lost in the 2008 crash. And markets do crash, it's a cyclicle thing.

Wall Street needs fixed one hell of a lot more than Social Security.

Now for anyone that doesn't get how SS works here's the deal:

About seven-and-a-half percent of your weekly check is taken out, matched by your employer, and put into the SS Fund. By the time you reach retirement age your share of the fund should be worth several hundred thousand dollars.

The money you saved is returned to you in monthly increments, at present usually $1000. If you are married, whichever spouse earned the most gets the $1000, the other spouse usually gets $500. When one of the couple dies, the $1000 check goes to the survivor, the $500 check stops.

Now the system was designed to keep retired persons afloat until they died. Life expectancy has increased. Does that mean that SS will go broke? No.

Money put in by people that die before they retire mostly stays in the general SS Fund. Exceptions are made for those that left minor children, and those that become disabled before retiring. Still, most of the decedents' money stays in the Fund. If a retired person dies before their contributions equal their withdrawals, the money stays in the SS Fund.

You young'uns ARE NOT paying for the Boomers' SS. The Boomers paid into the Fund, and that includes the mjority of women, who worked before marriage and children, as well as those that have worked continuously. You are paying for your own retirement.

The Social Security Fund is far more stable and solvent than money put into Wall Street.

Now Medicare, that's another matter than can only be fixed by instituting universal health care. But that's another thread.

So, you are too stupid to figure out how to invest wisely? How is that MY problem?!?! I am paying a fortune into social security and I will never see ONE CENT from it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Are you aware that Chile went to a privatized Social Security system in the 1980s and that their seniors get more money per capita from their system than our seniors get from our system?

Thirty Years of Private Social Security in Chile

Chile&#8217;s Private Social Security System a Big Success

The Sucess of Chile's Privatized Social Security

Chilean Model of Social Security

Private Accounts for Social Security?

Plus, if you were allowed to use your payroll tax money for a private account, you could leave that account to your wife and/or children when you died, whereas with SS no such thing is even possible since you don't own your SS money.

 

[GoneBezerk]

...but didn't you say you voted for Obamination.

Obamination isn't fixing Social Security, Medicare, etc because he is an idiot and he doesn't care. He only wants to win the next election so he is lying to the American public about the so-called money in the bank.

Are you aware that Chile went to a privatized Social Security system in the 1980s and that their seniors get more money per capita from their system than our seniors get from our system?

Thirty Years of Private Social Security in Chile

Chile’s Private Social Security System a Big Success

The Sucess of Chile's Privatized Social Security

Chilean Model of Social Security

Private Accounts for Social Security?

Plus, if you were allowed to use your payroll tax money for a private account, you could leave that account to your wife and/or children when you died, whereas with SS no such thing is even possible since you don't own your SS money.

 

[flacaltenn]

Romney and Ryan want to save Medicare and Social Security, but scumbag liberals run around telling the world they really want to get rid of it.

Romney says on TV that people over 55 won't have a change in their Medicare, but then Obamination steps up to the plate and lies about what Romney just said. You either have to be an idiot or a scumbag to believe Obamination putting words in Romney's mouth.

Obamination must think he has some Jedi mind trick capability. These are not the droids you are looking for....

The crooked cynical attitude the Obama Revolution has shown towards soc sec is illustrated by the fact that their "Payroll Tax Holiday" HASTENED THE DEMISE of the SS revenue stream by SIX YEARS !!! After stealing from its only real revenue stream so that they can further their Robin Hood Class War --- It went NEGATIVE in 2010.. Instead of the 2016 that had been predicted by the SSA all the way up to 2009...


And we're to trust them with "FIXING IT"??? Not a chance..