Bush says there is no SS lock box that as SS money comes in it

[candy331]

paid out in retirement benefits and the rest is spent in govt expenditures. So, pay back the money to SS, what is so hard about that to understand? Companies that have retirement for their employees had to be reined in because they were spending retirement money and could not pay it back so now they just go bankrupt and say they cannot pay it back. If the govt issued a check to you and you were not entitled to it according to them if you had spent it wouldn't you have to pay it back and soon too. I say pay the money back and do so with interest and that solves the problem.

[MissWaverly]

1. I can not understand what the problem is

Why is he spending people's pension money as soon as it comes in,
and if he does, No plan is going to keep him from spending our money,
we are feeding an elephant. What can be done to stop this robbery.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Yeah, if it's "our money", why the hell is he spending it? And on tax cuts

for the rich, no less!

[Quakerfriend]

5. That's a great line ! I'd love to see one of his 'town hall 'mtgs.

interrupted with someone shouting that out!!

[MissWaverly]

6. pension money should be left alone

It's OUR money, are we blowing it on plasma TVs and new cars, no, we are patiently paying every check so that we have something when we get old, since it's our money, we should be the ones to blow it or
SAVE it.

[valis]

45. Exactly right....

[wishlist]

40. Astounding that media has not called Bush to explain his lies/hypocrisy

I am stunned that the media pundits who were dismissive and implied that Kerry was just exaggerating or scaring seniors by saying that Bush planned to cut SS benefits are totally silent about Bush's lies and contradictions. Instead they praised Bush for being courageous and honest at the press conference! They should be pointing out that Bush denied or downplayed what he is now proposing. Also the contradiction in Bush now proposing big benefit cuts in order to 'save' the system after saying that if we do nothing we face big benefit cuts.

[MissWaverly]

46. yes, where are all those rabid critics of Kerry

That attacked him at every opportunity, it seems that the press
attack dogs have been muzzled until 08. There was barely a whimper of the Jeff Gannon/Guckert scandal. (196 trips to the WH that was to someone who never got a hard pass)

[theophilus]

2. Gee, seems like I remember Al Gore talking about a "lock box"

during some debate or other. Lots of folks have made fun of him. Hmmm, now what did Great George de Turd say to Al's promises about the Locked Box? I'll be a transcript of that debate would be interesting concerning this con sarned Lock Box. Maybe Al was right? Maybe he would have been a real president. I think so.

[johnaries]

10. Yes, during the first debate he said he would put BOTH Medicare

and SS in a lock box. He also warned about "squandering" the surplus we used to have (remember that?).
http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2000/00-10-03.shtml

"I will balance the budget every year. I'll pay down the national debt. I will put Medicare and Social Security in a lock box and protect them. And I will cut taxes for middle class families. I believe it's important to resist the temptation to squander our surplus. If we make the right choices, we can have a prosperity that endures and enriches all of our people."

[hollowdweller]

19. I was thinking about that debate on SS they had myself

Here was Gore. If we had of done what he suggested we would be in a hell of a lot better shape now.

You look at so much of the economic and foreign policy things Gore said that were proven either right or wise it's not funny. It's a shame that he also was proposing some gun control. That's why he lost my state. I just think how much more well off working americans were during Clinton's time, and if Gore could have continued with that what an even better place we would be living in.

Instead Bush has squandered all the careful work and disgraced our country with an illegal war, torture of prisoners, and fiscal irresponsibility. It's like the father had just washed and tuned up the truck, and the ignorant redneck son has taken the truck with a shotgun in the gun rack and his daddies credit card and run wild.

[candy331]

4. I understand that this has been the case for years that the govt

spends the excess not just starting with Bush, but I say check the accounting and whenever it started pay it back with interest. Rather than borrow a trillion/2 to privatize borrow it and pay back what is owed. Didn't the bankruptcy law pass (lol) because people should pay their debts, well the govt should set the example i believe and pay up.

[MissWaverly]

9. and if they are broke,

they should have a tax forgiveness program and allow anyone who
got s****d over to not pay any federal taxes until the difference is compensated.

[Bryn]

11. This is interesting analogy

Passing bankruptcy law is a JOKE if it's okay for the government not to pay back into SS they took, but we have to pay back EVERYTHING, ANYTHING THAT MOVES. Bush isn't practicing what he preaches..

[sandnsea]

7. That was the promise

Baby boomers paid more into the system to prepare for our retirement. We did that and now Bush wants to reneg on the promise made by Reagan. The Republian Party isn't the daddy party, it's the Deadbeat Dad party.

[Yupster]

16. They should have taken the surplus and

put it in CD's and insurance fixed accounts.

By lending it to itself and then spending it, how surprising is it that the money disappeared. The money has to be taken out of congress's hands or it will be spent.

[sandnsea]

29. They should have paid the debt

Then we wouldn't have debt so that meeting the SS obligation wouldn't be a burden. And not given so much away in tax cuts for the same reason.

[Bryn]

8. You know, you can't reason with a psychopath

Bush is too stubborn, will not listen to reason, he has fingers in his two ears, shuts his eyes, goes "nah nah nah nah"

If you ask him a question, he does not give you a straight answer. He beats around BUSH. Also he gets angry easily which shows how immature he is emotionally & mentally.

He does not know what is like to be an average person. He walks around with silver spoon in his mouth and does not know how to take it out.

I can't believe he's in charge of the United States of America, in charge of National Security, in charge of us, the People.

Only fools can't see what he is

:kick:

(edit to correct typo)

[Poppyseedman]

13. Bush is not "in charge of us"

You are talking as if we are unable to be "in charge" of ourselves.

No politician is in charge of me.

[Bryn]

14. You're Right

I stand correct

:hi:

[Erika]

12. SS rates were raised a decade ago in anticipation of baby

boomer's retirement. I have written my DC GOP reps twice about this and they refuse to respond to that issue.

Yes, Gore was laughed at by Bush and his friends when Gore brought the lock box up.

[Yupster]

17. The lockbox was a nonsensical idea

Here's the analogy.

You have a new car fund that you keep in your underwear drawer. Every month you put $ 100 into it.

One day, you decide to go on a vacation. So you take $ 2,000 out of your new car fund in your underwear drawer and go on a vacation. However you put a note in the underwear drawer to remind yourself that you owe your new car fund $ 2,000.

The questions...

1. Do you have to repay your new car fund?

2. Does your mortgage company care if you do or not?

3. Does it matter if you put your reminder norte in a locked box or not?

[Erika]

22. Excuse me?

Why would I borrow from a new car fund to pay for a vacation? I'm not borrowing anything, the government did. I deposited my money in their care, as they demanded, and they spent it elsewhere, without my knowledge or consent. They are the irresponsible ones, not me.

[MissWaverly]

24. Not only did they take your money

they bending over backwards to not tax the rich but they have no qualms about taking your money, if you have a lot of money, they don't want it, but if you're on a budget, they're after you hammer and tongs. Does this make since, it does if you follow the No Lobbyist left behind policy.

[Yupster]

36. To explain

"Why would I borrow from a new car fund to pay for a vacation?"

Because a family might want to go on a vacation and the most readily cash they have available is in their new car fund drawer. It happens all the time.


"I'm not borrowing anything, the government did."

Yes, in my example the person with the new car fund is the government, not you.


"I deposited my money in their care, as they demanded, and they spent it elsewhere, without my knowledge or consent."

Yes, congress can spend the money that used to be yours on anything it wishes. They require only a vote of the members, and a presidential signature - no consent from individual voters. Without your knowledge? Well that part is your fault because they've been doing this quite openly for more than 20 years now.

"They are the irresponsible ones, not me."

No argument from me here. You're right. However, don't you see that none of this has anything to do with any superfluous nonsense about a lockbox? Whether the congress puts its promise in a lockbox or not makes absolutely no difference. If congress wants to honor its social security obligations come 2017, it will raise the general funds necessary to do it. If they decide not to, they won't. Either way, it has nothing to do with whether the promise is in a lockbox or not. The lockbox was meaningless rhetoric.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

54. No, the lockbox was a great idea

The problem is that the government spent all of the money and will choose to reduce benefits instead of pay it back. If they had implemented the lockbox then the money would still be there and there would be no reason to reduce benefits. That money was not the governments to do with as it pleased. It came from taxes from American citizens for a specific purpose.

If you want to make an analogy, then the Dad in the family collected money each week from everyone in the family for the purpose of buying a new car that would benefit everyone in the family. Then Dad decides to spend that money on himself (in a week-long binge of drinking, gambling, and whoring) and puts an IOU in the sock drawer that he has no intention of honoring. The family no longer has the money to get a new car and everyone suffers.

[Igel]

56. Your amendment to Yupster's analogy works.

The parallel is that the family looked the otherway while the father binged in the garage, not wanting to know where the money came from. It doesn't matter, except to parcel out blame: in this case much of the money went for government services, and, since money is fungible, where exactly Congress put the "lock box" dollars isn't a sound question.

The question that does need to be asked is: since the $100/week the family set aside is gone, and a new car is going to be urgently needed very soon now, how is it to be funded? Let's continue the analogy.

The family can take out a loan in addition to its already staggering credit card debt and mortgage. But it's credit rating's at serious risk if it does that, and the interest might be far too high as a result. And it could ill afford the additional $200/week payments. (Fund the SS trust fund shortfall with more debt.)

The family can cut other expenditures to pay for it. But do they want to cut Johnny's music lessons and Lisa's soccer, much less Mom's weekly therapy sessions? (Pay SS shortfall from general revenues.)

The family hopes Dad gets a raise and overtime. That'll raise income ... but if the economy hits a bad patch, it'll be hard. (Hope productivity gains yield additional income so we don't have to worry about it.)

Require that any luxury item used by anybody be accompanied by a car surchage. Especially anybody that's not contributing sufficiently to the family budget, such as Johnny or Mom with their part time jobs. (Slap a SS surcharge on currently untaxed income.)

And, finally, they can decide to buy a cheaper model or a used one and tough out those Houston summers with no air conditioning. (Reduce benefits.)

[johnaries]

60. The idea of the lockbox is that you put the money in the box

and DON'T TOUCH IT! Gore was trying to stop the IOU's.

[Yupster]

61. Gore never proposed putting any actual money anywhere

You think he said to put hundreds of billions of dollars in a box?

With no interest?

If he would have proposed taking the actual physical surplus each month and investing it somewhere apart from the government like bank CD's, then that would have had some meaning.

But his idea was not that or close to it.

His idea was just rhetorical nonsense. Make a pledge to not spend the IOU's on anything but social security. Great, but we don't have the money to pay back the IOU's anyway, so it's kind of superfluous making non-binding pledges on how to spend non-existant money.

[johnaries]

62. A METAPHORICAL "box". The idea was that SS dollars

would only be used for SS.

Here's what he proposed during the Campaign:

I will keep it in a lockbox. The interest savings, I would put right back into it. That extends the life for 55 years. I am opposed to a plan that diverts 1 out of every 6 dollars away from the Trust Fund. It would go bankrupt within this generation.

Gore wants to maintain the existing Social Security system (and indeed raise benefits), by subsidizing it from general taxation. He would:
would pay down the national debt as soon as possible, and transfer the equivalent of the interest saved to the Social Security trust fund
supports providing increased Social Security benefits to widows and women who take time off to bring up children
opposes raising retirement age to 70
would introduce, in addition to Social Security, individual accounts called “Retirement Savings Plus”, in which savings would be matched (at different rates according to income) by the federal government

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Social_Security.htm

[Yupster]

63. So where would the dollars go

while they were being saved?

They would be loaned to the general budget and then spent just exactly like they are now.

It was a meaningless proposal.

[snippy]

15. Democrats should start demanding that the very first thing to be done

about Social Security must be preventing Bush and the republican Congress from continuing to spend the Social Security annual surplus. It should be invested by the Social Security administration in a single trust fund account which holds broad stock index funds and a broad selection of government and corporate bonds. This would immediately improve the solvency of the trust fund and reveal the true annual deficits that Bush and the republican Congress are advocating in their budgets.

The republicans would howl with outrage and their only defense would be that every president and Congress has done it. But the democrats can easily argue that Bush's incessant complaints about the upcoming insolvency of the trust fund show that everyone should be able to agree that it finally is time to stop this practice. This would turn Bush's argument for privateering Social Security against him. He and other republicans would shit their pants.

Democrats also need to stand firm that Social Security retain its defined benefit plan status to truly continue as a retirement insurance plan. Only some form of a defined benefit plan can provide an adequate minimum guaranteed amount to all retirees.

Some combination of increased revenue and decreased outlays together with some type of "add on" accounts may have to be agreed to in the future, but for now democrats should limit themselves to talking about stopping Bush from continuing to loot the trust fund and about maintaining Social Security as a defined benefit plan with a minimum guaranteed benefit.

[Yupster]

18. That's the answer snippy

The surplus has to be taken away from the government. If the government is allowed to hold it, they will spend it simply because there is no mechanism for the government to hold hundreds of billions of dollars within itself.

Take the surplus each month and put it in banks or other investments.

I don't agree about putting it in the stock market though.

[Erika]

26. What are you talking about?

Bush wants it spent in banks and other financial institutions. The money itself makes its own statement. Just hold it.

[Erika]

23. I 100% agree

Who gave D.C. permission to take our monies they demanded and collected and spend it as they please with no answering to us.

[Yupster]

37. The answering to you

is the congressional elections every two years.

Once elected and seated, congress votes to spend as much money as it wants, any way it wants to.

[abburdlen]

20. Didn't that guy swear to uphold

and defend the Constitution? I know, it makes no sense to start expecting him to start now but shouldn't the AG or someone let Georgie about that old document?

Amendment XIV Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

[MoonRiver]

21. Truly, NOBODY but a morAn would fall for that.

And even the morAns are probably starting to get a clue that they're being robbed blind.
:hide:

[LuPeRcALiO]

25. He's right, which means that his entire approach is wrong, wrong, wrong.

1. There's no legal distinction between revenue collected from payroll taxes and revenue from income or corporate taxes. They're all federal funds.

2. Social Security benefits are simply federal expenditures. There's no reason that the revenue collected from payroll taxes has to equal benefits paid out.

3. THUS: Social Security is not and never will be "broke." The federal government can pay whatever benefits Congress mandates from whatever revenue stream it likes.

[Erika]

27. Ah, our taxes to SS should be kept separate

If it had always been so, our senior citizens would all have a very comfortable retirement. We paid enough. As I've brought up to my GOP reps, that just because they chose to spend this money elsewhere, it doesn't mean our SS taxes should be part of the general fund for their spending, and our benefits should be reduced.

[LuPeRcALiO]

28. just because it's been "spent" doesn't mean it isn't still owed!

Of course the federal government is obliged to honor its congressionally mandated promise to pay benefits. Bush is just trying to weasel out of that obligation like a pension-stealing CEO.

I'm pointing out that "going bankrupt" is bullshit because there's no reason SS payroll taxes have to equal SS benefits in the first place.

[Erika]

30. Excuse Me. Why does SS owe anything?

If the monies were diverted into the general fund, why is SS tax collections held captive? The government stole this money from SS taxpayers.

[LuPeRcALiO]

31. It "owes" (is obliged to pay) future benefits.

The thing is, SS payroll taxes have always gone into the general fund, and benefits have come out of it. The SS Administration keeps track of it what comes in and what goes out but there's no reason it couldn't pay out more than it takes in.

In other words, there's no crisis, because any projected shortfall could simply come out of the general fund.

p.s. heavy emphasis on "projected."

[Erika]

32. The SS taxes have not always gone into the general fund

They should become dedicated funds once again, as Gore advised.

[LuPeRcALiO]

33. Not directly, but effectively they have. Here's how it works:

1. the payroll taxes come in.
2. SS benefits and administrative costs are paid from the revenue.
3. the remainder is invested in "special issue" securities from the federal government, and the cash (from the sale of the securities) goes into the general fund.

From Social Security Online:

"The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund."

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n2

So the general fund gets the money and SS gets one of those "IOUs" that Bush keeps blathering about.

[BornaDem]

48. "Obliged to pay" - Are you aware that the Supreme Court...

has already ruled that the gov't has NO obligation to pay you anything from the $ it has taxed from your paycheck as F.I.C.A.?

[LuPeRcALiO]

50. No surprise there.

The obligation to pay benefits comes from regulations governing SS, and Congress makes those laws. That's why Shrub is lobbying Congress to change them. From today's L.A. Times:

"'Those who block meaningful reform are going to be held to account at the polls,' Bush said Friday."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-social30apr30,1,5975599.story?coll=la-news-a_section

[BornaDem]

51. Nobody is going to like whatever they do to SS...

What people have to understand is that SS is either going to pay greatly reduced benefits, pay them at an age that few people reach, or pay no benefits at all. There is no way that younger workers are going to pay the Boomers anything like what their parents received. If they did, they would not have enough to live on after taxes. The reason Bush wants to let young people take a small % of their F.I.C.A. taxes to invest outside the SS program is because in all probability that will be the total of what they're going to get when they reach retirement age other than anything they have saved on their own. (Good luck!) After people see what the gov't has done, they will be less and less inclined to keep participating in a program that takes exorbitant amounts of their paycheck and is going to give them nothing back. We are headed for some ugly times and the Boomers so outnumber the generations following them, they can vote themselves benefits or elect people who will do it for them.

[LuPeRcALiO]

52. Look, SS racked up a $1.2 trillion surplus in two decades.

If there's a possible shortfall coming in the misty future, all we have to do is adjust the earnings cap to meet it.

We could raise it gradually, adjusting it to meet annually revised actuarial projections, or we could eliminate it altogether.

And that's all we need to do. Anything else is pure pension-purloining propaganda from our MBA-in-chief.

[BornaDem]

53. Greenspan testified not long ago...

that "misty future" is coming in about 4 yrs. Didn't get much play in the media. I think lifting the cap is a great idea, but I'm not at all sure that would be more than a drop in the bucket. Unless they soak the people who would be paying beyond what is the present cap by capping their benefits or giving them no benefits, a lot of the $ taken in in this way will be paid out in larger payments to those same people. Once SS starts running in the red and not in the black where the excess is used to keep the deficit appearing lower, how much support do you think SS will have from either party? I think less and less as it adds more and more to the deficit or takes $ away from other programs or increases taxes every year by big chunks. In addition to SS, there is the Medicare problem that will hit the fan shortly too. Nobody has addressed that. The way things look to me, I think nothing will be done about either until they absolutely have to do something because there is a crisis. I think Bush just wants to be remembered as the guy who said it was coming and nobody in D.C. would do a thing about it when there was still time to do something.

If there is no good outcome and the remedy pisses off everybody, why do anything? Just ride the gravy train until it runs out. No sense in ending it sooner by being "unelected." Besides they have their own retirement system which will keep paying until the last taxpayer refuses to anti up.

[LuPeRcALiO]

55. Greenspan is talking about the SS "securities" coming due.

That's the only crisis facing SS -- collecting the $1.2 trillion Dumbshit has "borrowed" from the trust fund to finance his tax cuts and colonial war.

That's not a Social Security problem; that's Bush's problem. Let him figure out how to pay back the cash he borrowed without stealing everybody's pension, which is what his totally unnecessary "reform" is all about.

Take a look at this article from March 11, 2004:

"With Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's help, the Bush administration would rob retirees to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Greenspan recently urged Congress to reduce Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age (now 65 to 67 depending on birth year) rather than roll back the tax cuts, which are the main cause of growing budget deficits."

-- "Don't Get Duped Out of Your Social Security," by Holly Sklar

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Sklar0311.htm

[BornaDem]

57. Greenspan is talking about the trillions...

(12, 18, 20, I don't remember what the number is) of OVER promises that the gov't has made to the citizens that they all know is not going to be paid.

If Congress rolled back the tax cuts in addition to the Fed raising interest rates, what do you think would happen to the economy?

[Yupster]

58. Another drop in the bucket that would help

would be to bring all workers back into the social security universe.

Most public school teachers in 12 states including California and Texas do not contribute to social security.

Just the change of bringing them back into the system would relieve a portion of the stress the system is under.

[slipslidingaway]

34. Trust fund and tax cuts

Even though the money is owed to the trust fund, we're broke as we have spent it on other things.

Foreigners hold somewhere between 45-55% of our bonds and our government cannot pay everyone.

Bush in February 2001, where he got the 2.6 trillion dollar figure I'm not sure.

"To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010228.html


"Prepare for Social Security to get plundered to pay for tax cuts

During last year's campaign, George W. Bush solemnly pledged that his tax cuts would not come at the expense of future retirees, that the reserve the Social Security system was accumulating to help it pay benefits to the baby boomers would be kept in a "lockbox" — that is, that Social Security surpluses would not be used to cover deficits in the rest of the budget.

Ever since Mr. Bush was sworn in, however, it has been apparent that he takes some of his promises more seriously than others. And so no sooner were big tax cuts for the rich in the bag — an event followed, with breathtaking speed, by the revelation that revenue projections are in free fall — than administration officials suddenly discovered that the lockbox is a silly idea. Here's what Mitch Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said last weekend: "There is no box, there is no mattress. Paul O'Neill doesn't have a hole in the backyard where this money goes. . . . What's unfair is to mislead the American people into thinking this money's in a box somewhere. It isn't. That box has nothing but promissory notes in it." (Thanks to Joshua Micah Marshall for that quote.)"

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/71101.html


"Bush repeated the bankruptcy assertion this week, ignoring the fact that at the end of December Social Security's Old Age and Survivors Insurance Fund, and the separate Disability Insurance Fund, held a combined $1.7 trillion worth of Treasury securities.

While the president may not choose to recognize the reality of the trust funds, their existence played a key role in his massive federal income tax cut passed in 2001.

Part of the rationale for that tax cut was that the government would run huge budget surpluses over the following 10 years, surpluses estimated to reach $5.6 trillion over the period 2002-11, according to the Congressional Budget Office. More than half of that total was projected to come from a surplus of $3.1 trillion in Social Security payroll tax revenue over expenses for the period.

Without such large projected surpluses, it is doubtful Bush could have pushed through tax cuts on the scale of the variously estimated $1.2 trillion to $1.6 trillion cuts enacted in 2001.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_berry&sid=aW9MJ9gZO8S8


HEARING OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2006

"REP. STARK: Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us here today. I just wanted to reaffirm something with you. I have a problem at home. My son will be 10 shortly, and he received from his grandparents a thousand-dollar savings bond which will mature shortly after his 10th birthday.

And with all this discussion, the Budget Committee, the majority of the Budget Committee spokesman suggested that the trust fund was going bankrupt because it's just IOUs from the government. And I was trying to explain to my son that what he has is an IOU from the government. And can I go home and tell him that the secretary of the Treasury assures him that that thousand-dollar U.S. savings bond is gilt-edge and will be honored by the United States and full faith and credit of the United States?

SEC. SNOW: Yes, yes you can. Those are full faith and an obligation.

REP. STARK: And is it not true, then, that all of the assets in the Social Security trust fund are as gilt-edge and secure as my son's U.S. savings bond?

SEC. SNOW: As I said to Congressman Rangel, they are all backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government --

REP. STARK: Thank you.

SEC. SNOW: -- and there has never been a default.

REP. STARK: There's been some question raised here, and I thank you for that answer."

http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/72716.html

[slipslidingaway]

35. "The Looting of Social Security" by Allen W. Smith

scroll down to his latest comment

http://www.allenwsmith.com/

[magellan]

38. Great find!!

Mr. (Dr.?) Smith is right on target with his well-written articles. I was most interested to learn the following:

1) In 1983, payroll taxes were increased to create a surplus. That surplus was specifically intended to cover the anticipated future shortfall caused by the babyboomers retiring...and would have done if not for the fact that:

2) Bush Sr. started raiding the accruing Trust Fund surplus and using it as general fund revenue in the late 80s. (Clinton continued this practice.) FEW AMERICANS KNEW ABOUT IT (I didn't at the time), though they should have been told; the government was, in effect, stealing money that was being involuntarily contributed by every worker for Social Security through FICA deductions, and using it on OTHER THINGS.

3) During the 2000 Presidential campaigns, first Gore, then Bush** pledged to protect the surplus from such raids.

During two 2001 radio addresses, Bush** further promised:

"My plan will keep all Social Security money in the Social Security system where it belongs,"

and

"We’re going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus,"

and from his Feb 2001 SotU:

"To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone."

Of course, these were just the first of many Bush** LIES.

Smith correctly defines what's happened since -- Bush**'s plundering of more than $600 billion of the Trust Fund surplus -- as not only a broken convenant with the American people but an illegal practice by the government as a whole. His solution echoes the very simple call many of us have been making repeatedly to Bush**:

If you want to save Social Security, stop spending the money we're contributing to our Trust Fund surplus and pay back the $1.7 Trillion the government has already stolen straight out of our pockets!!!

He goes on to say the surplus should then be invested in marketable Treasury bonds. "This alone will result in the trust fund holding $2 trillion in real assets by 2017."

There's a March '05 article from Forbes about Smith's sane perspective as well.

So, can we indict Bush** yet??? PERP WALK!! PERP WALK!!!

[slipslidingaway]

43. There has to be a default on a group of bondholders,

our government can either default on the bonds owed to the SSTF (the U.S. citizens) or to foreign bondholders unless there is a tax increase.

In my opinion the problems with SS should not be discussed without mention of the tax cuts that Bush pushed through, a large part of the surplus at the time was really owed to the SSTF, see the Paul Krugman link below.

This is not just a SS problem, it is a general spending problem. We cannot have a policy of spreading democracy worldwide and put the tab on a credit card for future generations.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/71101.html

Yes, we had a plan in 1983 to provide for the retirement of the baby boom generation. That is when our payroll taxes began to increase and have almost doubled since that time. Below is a yearly table of the combined trust fund with the surplus amounts.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

[Yupster]

59. The way it will be done I predict

is around 2015 the congress wil pass the "Unified Budget" which will bring social security trust funds officially within the general budget.

At that point the sham of a social security trust fund will disappear and the sending of the monthly checks will become general obligations of the United States just like any other money spent.

Once that happens, the social security bonds will be zeroed out through creative accounting. Since the general budget cannot owe money to itself, the bonds will create an asset and equal liabilty within the budget, so they will zero each other out.

Then, the debt will just disappear. Pffffft.

That can be declared official Looting Day.

Anyway, that's how it will happen. All nice and legal. The bonds will just magically disappear as will the trust fund. Pufffft.

[slipslidingaway]

66. If that happens, and I do not doubt that it will, the people better wake

up and start paying attention.

[Yupster]

67. Nah, the average person couldn't care less

if there is a trust fund or not.

As long as the checks go out, what difference does the accounting format make?

[Vickers]

39. Q: would you rather have Uncle Sam IOUs, or Enron IOUs?

That is the question I put to the RW idiots when this subject comes up.

[BornaDem]

41. You want to be taxed enough in addition to what everybody...

now pays to pay back all the $ that politicians of BOTH parties have used for pet projects since 1964? If you believe that people will stand for this, either you already pay no taxes and don't care what other people who work pay, OR you think all the gov't has to do is crank up the printing presses and print the $ for repayment. I hate to break it to you, but the gov't has NO $ (zilch, nada) except what they charge citizens in taxes. People who pay taxes will not be thrilled to get to pay TWICE for a program that already returns 1.8% when they retire.

[slipslidingaway]

44. The real spending of the trust fund started under Bush Sr.

when the surplus began to grow after payroll taxes were raised beginning in 1983 to create a cushion for the baby boom generation.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

[BornaDem]

47. They have been spending ALL the SS fund since Lyndon Johnson...

in 1964. It got worse after they raised payroll taxes in 1983 because they were taking in more $ so they (BOTH parties) had more $ to steal. (Remember who controlled congress, mostly both houses, from 1964 until 1994?) Notice that by raising taxes in 1983 to prepare for the Boomers, nobody suggested that all that $ not continue to go into the general fund where they could continue to spend it. If they raise payroll taxes again with the excuse that they're going to fix the current problem, if you are younger than a Boomer, you had better start saving every penny you can because if you live to get old, there will be NO SS, not a reduced payment, NONE, for you for certain. Neither party is your friend if you have worked for 30 yrs. and paid into SS. Your chances of seeing anything are next to none.

Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled long ago that the government does not have to pay you anything of the taxes you have paid into SS?

[slipslidingaway]

65. Fortunately, and unfortunately I was working during the last SS

crisis. Fortunately because I've saved outside of SS, unfortunately seeing the extra payroll taxes vanish that could have provided a sweeter retirement.

Our elected officials have been asleep at the wheel. No I was not aware about the Supreme court ruling, but would not be surprised.

[Wizard777]

42. No 1-2-3 lock box. Van Hagore? LMAO

After seeing Bush spend. I think we need to upgrade. I now favor a Vault with armed guards and a special ops team to hunt down and kill anyone that even tries to spend your retirement money on anything other than your retirement.

[Lori Price CLG]

49. ...goes directly to Halliburton and Monsanto for privatising Iraq? n/t

[GetTheRightVote]

64. That is why * wants to go to private accounts, because they are using the

money in SS up and they wish to get out of the trust funds which support it. * is always lying.

:kick: