Reply #68: The difference is... [View All]

[ljm2002]

...that the money was borrowed. The government borrowed money from an insurance program that we citizens paid into for a specific purpose, and the government owes that money back, period. Just as we owe money to China and other countries from whom we borrow.

Are you arguing that the U.S. government can default on its obligation to its own citizens, whose retirement money it borrowed, because it's all just government money anyway? That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security and how it is financed. That money was paid by citizens to cover their retirement and it must be used for that.

The current assault on Social Security is designed to foster this sort of thinking. "Oh, we borrowed it, but really we just borrowed it from ourselves, so who really cares?"

A long campaign of obfuscation, framing, and general all around poisoning the well of political discussion has fostered misunderstanding around this issue.

The money that was put into Social Security in the first place was NOT general tax money. Just because the government chose to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, and would have to repay it from general revenues, does not in any way, shape or form mean that Social Security was funded with general tax dollars. It was self-funded, with both employees and employers paying into it for the specific purpose of providing a base retirement stipend for employees when they retire. Those so-called IOUs (another brilliant bit of framing by the right) is a valid debt that the U.S. owes. If the U.S. chooses to default on that debt then it would amount to actual theft by the government.