When Social Security was first setup, I have heard the speech that FDR made in regards to WHAT it was for, the WORKER'S of this Country would be paying into it...as something for them to draw on- in their future days as a RETIREMENT FUND. This MONEY that they paid into ALL their working years...would still remain a SPECIAL FUND, used strictly for the WORKER'S or their families. It would be at least "SOMETHING" they could count on...being there for them in their Golden Years. I remember years ago- when My Parents were alive- that the Government announced that there was such an ABUNDANCE of funds in the SS Account- that they COULD NEVER use it all up! So...they made the decision to TAP into this Account! NOW....what I want to know is- WHO'S ADMINISTRATION and PRESIDENCY was in the "WHITE HOUSE"...when this BIG Decision was made? AND how did they manage to make the decision to take MONEY that was NOT SUPPOSED TO TOUCHED!!! The WORKER'S MONEY! How did they have the RIGHT to ACCESS This Account, and FDR had promised that it would be the WORKER'S MONEY ONLY! Not to be touched for any other purpose? Because the Congress does NOT PAY INTO it- and their is Automatically Paid to THEM- and is Untouchable....then WHY are they ABLE to TAP into OUR SS FUND? And use it for anything they have chosen use it for? AND NOW we are running out of OUR SS MONEY? I think they better take a LOOK BACK- Listen to FDR'S Speech on SS!!
THEN TELL ME IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE COMMON WORKER'S?? I WANT MY ONE QUESTION ANSWERED- "PLEASE"...WHO WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT THAT TAPPED INTO OR GAVE PERMISSION TO- TAP INTO SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY? And look back years ago...you will see it actually had a SURPLUS of money in it!
It would definitely would be our OWN GOVERNMENT STEALING from us- if they do not replace this money for the Middle and Lower Class WORKERS!
Actually, that would be Reagan, not LBJ. Up until Reagan's administration SS was a pay as you go system. Reciepts from payroll taxes roughly equalled benefits being paid out each year. In 1982 it became obvious that the system could not continue to meet its obligations at the level of payroll taxes it wasthen collecting. Benefits and the number of retirees had increased too much and it would begin to have about a 2.1% annual shortfall. An increase in tax or a cut in benefits was needed but each of the political parties wanted the other one to be the one to those propose changes, so they could accuse the other party of raising taxes and taking food out of Grandma's mouth. In the end they agreed to accept the recommendations of a bipartisan commission chaired by Alan Greenspan. It recommended a modest payroll tax increase that would not only meet current obligations, but collect a bit extra to build the Social Security Trust Fund. That fund would be needed to meet the anticipated extra costs the system anticipated years down the road when the "Baby Boomers" entered the system in large numbers and the number of workers supporting those retirees would decline.
The extra cash was only allowed to be used to purchase U.S. Treasury Bonds. After all, they are considered the safest investment in the world and have never been defaulted on. Unfortunately, from the start the fund was used as a piggy bank by successive administrations. Right away the Reagan administration used the money from the sale of those bonds to the trust fund to cut taxes, mostly for the wealthy and to fund a military build up that made it impossible for the Soviet Union to keep pace. Meanwhile, his small government administration was borrowing even more money, running a deficit and actually expanding social programs. We had more of the same from the elder Bush. His attempt at fiscal responsibility, a tax increase came back to haunt him later because it cause him to break his campaign promise of "No New Taxes". Even with those tax increases we had more deficits along with expansion of social programs, an economic stimulus package, then more military spending on the first Gulf War.
Under Clinton the budget was actually balanced but then when the younger Bush took office all bets were off. First we had 9/11 and the reaction to that. We became involved in the war in Afganistan to go after Al-Qaeda and it's Taliban protectors. That was all understandable and necessary, but on top of that we started a second war in Iraq to go after non-existant weapons. That war dragged on and on, costing billions of dollars not even budgeted for year after year. We took our eyes off the ball in Afganistan and gave up most of the gains we had made there and extending our involvemment there. While we were spending all that money on two wars we had another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, an expansion of medicaid and various economic schemes to keep the economy pumped up.
Now we are almost four years into the Obama administration. The final months of the Bush years brought on an economic collapse not seen in the US since the Hoover administration. It's effects were worldwide. To it's credit the Bush administration reacted quickly. They engineered a $1TRILLION bailout of the largest banks, effectively nationalizing them by taking equity in return. All the largest banks were required to participate so the weaker ones wouldn't be singled out by investors and there were no strings attached to the gift we gave them.
Sorry, my windy response was truncated there. While the bailouts were sold to the public as necessary to allow the banks to continue lending, they simply sat on that pile of cash. They only seemed to want use it to give bonuses and perks to their executives, buy up smaller banks and pay to put their corporate logos on sports stadiums. Meanwhile small businesses and homeowners were left to go belly-up as credit became unobtainable.
Meanwhile, as the Bush administration was winding down, a bailout of the auto industry and a halfhearted economic stimulus package were being prepared by Congress. Obama took office just in time to sign off on those projects. Under Obama the "payroll tax" has been cut to help put more cash in people's pockets. The problem with that is that the payroll tax is another name for the part of your taxes designated to fund Social Security and Medicare. So, just as the baby boomers are retiring, many of them forced to begin taking benefits as their jobs were eliminated we are reducing the amount going in to those programs.
We were able to spend more than we were taking in to the budget without the resorting to the inflationary money printing policies of the Nixon ,Ford and Carter administrations. Do you remember in the 2000 election, Al Gore promised to put the trust fund into a "lock box"? Most people just laughed at him over that because they didn't know what the trust fund was or how it was being abused.
So the short answer to the question of who stole that money, is it was us. We loaned it to ourselves and squandered it. Or at least, we elected the politicians who were willing to borrow that money to give us all those things without paying for them. We are leaving it to our children to pay back the money we lent to ourselves. Now that we are starting to have to withdraw money from the trust fund, the politicians are looking for a way to get out of re-paying the debt. The writer of the above article kept implying that for some reason, the bonds we sold to the trust fund aren't real debts and don't really have to be repaid. That those debts can be simply ignored without consequence.
I don't know what Gore planned to do with the money the government was getting from selling bonds to the trust fund though. Simply not spending it would have had disasterous effects on the economy. We would have effectively removed those dollars from circulation. That would have led to some combination of higher taxes and reductions in government spending. It probably would have caused deflation now as dollars were removed from circulation, followed by inflation later as that money was being spent back into the economy. It was incredibly shortsighted of our leaders to begin making all that borrowed money available to the politicians without a plan on how to spend it.
The responsible thing to do with that money would have been to use it on projects that would reduce the burden of repaying those bonds on the next generation or to enhance their ability to repay them. We should have spent it on making sure our world class infrastucture was completely up to date and in good repair as we go into those years of re-paying the bonds. That work could have put more Americans to work during the last 30 years. Instead, as we begin to ask our children to re-pay those bonds we are handing them crumbling roads and bridges, many already beyond their designed lifetimes. Our power plants, dams, seaports, etc. often haven't been updated since the end of World War 2.
We could have spent that money making sure our children were the best educated workforce in the world, better able to shoulder the burden we are asking them to take on. Instead, we cut student aid and privatized educational lending, leaving those who do manage to get an education without their parents being able to write the large checks necessary, deep in debt to the banks or even worse, saddled with all that debt and having a worthless degree since there was no longer much oversight over what programs were eligible for loans. We encouraged our children to enter the military, not to defend our shores but to project our force around the world. They are delaying their entry into the work force and often leaving the military with physical or emotional disabilities that will follow them the rest of their lives.
We could have put in place policies that would have encouraged our businesses to grow within or country, providing jobs to our children. Instead we gave our wealthiest citizens tax cuts in the naive hope they would re-invest that money into building our economy. Instead, they invested in closing factories here and building new ones elsewhere where labor is cheap and they don't have to worry about environmental regulations or child labor laws. Now many of what once were our strongest businesses consider themselves to be multi-nationals without any obligation to our nation or it's citizens.
So, I guess the only takeaway from this dismal assessment of where we stand today is that we have missed our chance to prepare for the aging of our generation. Who knows whether our children will be willing to pay into a system that burdens them unfairly in exchange for a promise that their children will do the same for them. Just rememberwhen you vote next month, who it was that put tax cuts forthe wealthiest Americans ahead of investment in our future.
To bad schurenberg didn't read your reply before he wrote his "5 myths". I am 62 and my ss statement shows that I have paid in since my part time job in high school. The goverment collected the money in the name of ss with the obligation to pay out when I reached retirement age. Any court of law would uphold a simular business contract taken out between two parties. Words like entitlement seems to have a hidden meaning of "goverment handout". The goverment owes me plain and simple. They robbed the trust fund and if they have to get the money from other sources like business tax breaks for people from other countries comming here, free medical for illegals or billions of dollars to countries to support their military so be it.
Also I would like to thank BAM4756 for lowering Regan's status of the "greatest President" down to "the killer of the middleclass" where he needs to be.
I worked under Social Security for @ 25 years. The last 18 years of my employment I worked for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Because I did not work under SS within the last 10 years of my employment I was not allowed to receive the total amount of SS I was entitled to receive. When President RR was in office he had a law (in my opinion it was & is an unfair law)passed stating that if a worker is to receive a retirement check from their employer (my was the Comm. of Mass.)and did not contribute into SS during the last 10 years of employment,(monies were taken for the retirement fund and not SS) they could not receive the full amount of SS they thought they were entitled to. When I retired, I thought I was going to receive @ $900. per month from SS which was calculated from what I had contributed into SS over my lifetime of employment. Because I did not contribute into SS the last 18 years I would only be allowed @ 1/3 of the $900. per month. President R. said that to receive full entitlement from both SS and Retirement (which I contributed into both) would be considered "double dipping". Maybe the fact that the President would receive a LARGE retirement from his office as President, he also would receive a LARGE retirement from his years of acting & I believe President of the Screen Actors Guild, he did not think it would be justified that he also receive any payment from SS, (I do not know during what time period if and when he contributed into SS) so he decided that unless we contributed during the last 10 years we were not entitled to receive all that we contributed. When I retired, I was depending on my retirement and the SS I thought I was to receive to survive. I was sadly mistaken. I thank God every day for the wonderful children and their spouses that I have. It is because of them that I can survive not the SS monies that I receive along with my retirement. I contributed for some 20-25 years into SS and get back peanuts. Maybe if our government would stop doling out SS to people who have never contributed one dime, then they could give us blue collar workers what we DESERVE.
The government took the Social Security money that workers paid in over the years and spent it on OTHER things. So, that money is OWED to the Social Security fund. Workers have paid into this fund their entire working lives, so yes, they are owed these benefits. Had their payments been set aside instead of instantly spent by the government on other things, the fund would have plenty of money. So yes, these benefits are owed. The government should meet its true obligations and cut out something else!
Who is this guy? Although technical correct, he misses the point. The federal goverment has used SS money to fund programs for a long time. TO do so they have borrowed from the SS fund. The money is owed to those who put into it. Now the federal goverment can clearly steal this money by passing various laws. But it is still stealing. The deficit was not caused by SS it was caused by consistent long term over spending.
Mr. Schurenberg was correct Myth #1. Social Security didn't create the deficit and shouldn't be cut as a fix; a much loved progressive slogan.
He is incorrect on Myths #2,#3 and #4. He may not realize that he has "bought" the progressive explanations he uses for those Myths!
Myth #2: Social Security is NOT earned and NOT an entitlement. Social Security funds are OBLIGATORY DEPOSITS by U.S. workers that have been withdrawn from their paychecks by the U.S Government. The Gov't OWES
these funds back to the worker upon attaining qualifying age, just like the bank owes you back your savings and checking deposits when you ask for them. What do you call the money subtracted from our paychecks every payday - DONATIONS! So, S.S. is not earned or entitled, it is an OWED deposit. It would be fair to say that the Corporate contributions could be put under "earned" or "entitled", but if they are not paid to us, they are owed back to the Corps. If the Gov't does not give back these deposits to individuals or Corps...the correct term for that behavior is called STEALING!
Myth #3: There is NO Social Security Trust Fund now. It is a pay as you go obligation the Gov't. has been taking out of the General Fund for decades. The Gov't had U.S. Acounting absolve that fund, back in the 70's, and had the deposits put into the General Fund because of it's "shortfall of funds" to cover U.S. expenses and not show the REAL deficit since then. Clever Gov't bookkeeping/accounting, but if anyone else does that, Corporately, business-wise or personally, they call if FRAUD, not CLEVER! There may be an ENTRY called the Social Security Fund, but it is a shadow entry as no funds are deposited there ...they just kind of "bypass" it on their way into the General Fund.
Myth #4: STOP the BIG LIE (or denial). THE U.S. is BROKE. Actually, it is way more than broke...that would be a zero balance. The U.S. has a 4 TRILLION dollar DEFICIT...that is way south of zero. They actually call that negative. If the other world governments cashed in all of their U.S. Treasuries and other bond obligations to cover their national deficites (except China), GAME OVER. Treasuries are only floating on time and the "PROMISE" of the U.S. Gov't to pay it's debt over time with TAX COLLECTIONS - which way do you think they are going...if you guessed down...drink some more cool-aid! They can only pay these on a time dispersement basis, not a CASH basis because these I.O.U.'s are not back by anything, except a PROMISE. We went off the Gold Standard decades ago, as well, so nothing backs up our money except a promise. When you go ask for your funds, do you want cash, gold or a promise? How much are PROMISES going for today!
This may not be an accepted "POLITICALLY CORRECT" response, but it is the truth. Go check Google on these things. You almost have to make a mokery out of our existing financial reality to wake people up because they have fallen asleep, don't care, want to believe it will work itself out or a lot of other reasons to explain the REALITY we do not want to accept away. Countries will continue to buy U.S. Treasuries and not cash them in because they know it could not be done before the maturity dates. And WHY is that? Because the only thing saving us(synonomous with the U.S.), is the fact that other countries NEED our consumers to buy their exports. They are not going to kill the Goose giving them the eggs they need. So, the world economy is really locked into a "DON'T BLINK" game and that is what's keeping so many Governments and the U.S. up, even though they are all technically, financially and really broke.
In short...the whole planet is in a gigantic "PONZY SCHEME". So sleep well tonight and don't fret. Everything is fine if we just don't check the accounting or the math or the explanations or the reality. PRETENDING is the new reality.
The truth can hurt, but I am an American and I want to believe that we will overcome the fog we are in. We have to...or we will just be another Third World Country.
"The Social Security trustees' report estimates that last year payroll taxes fell short of the sums paid out to beneficiaries. Small surpluses will return for a few years; then the red ink will return for good in 2015."
When the Obama administration allowed the 1% to continue their tax cut he allowed the middle class a cut also. However, that cut was not in our taxes but a cut in our SS payments. Add that cut into SS and the government's proclivity to "borrow" from SS leaving us with I.O.U.'s in the form of bonds that must be paid WITH INTEREST and of course SS is running low. The problem with this story is the same problem with government: These people represent the top 1%, NOT the middle class. So it is natural for them to present government's P.O.V.. You'll notice there's no mention of saving money by stopping our perpetual wars or closing at least half our based situated around the world which dump millions monthly into foreign countries' economy. That's because the 1% depend on bloated salaries, bonuses and golden parachutes - not SS. In other words, to the top 1% SS is an unnecessary luxury they don't want to afford. The solution: Stop electing millionaire lawyers and Wall Streeters. Look for people who serve their community unselfishly, honestly regardless of party.
Social Security has been a mandatory deduction from the start, so buddy boys...our retirement checks are MANDATORY!!!!
They should have never borrowed from that fund to start with. Corporations are audited every year to ensure that they are depositing 401K funds, or have money allocated to cover promised pension plans. If any company did what the government has done, there would executives in PRISON for it.
Americans need to wake up and vote in some responsible accountants, auditors and honest business men to protect our retirement account and the future economy of this country. You don't bail out big businesses to save a nation, you allow citizens to use their money to decide who stays in business!
Many citizens here reflect the true opinion of the American worker about Social Security. We paid into for years, and we are going to get our checks! This article is crap.
Administration has found reasons for funds to be pulled away from Social Security toward other ends, but this may prove dangerous for a number of reasons. The borrowing that has taken place from Social Security has created a substantial government liability to the fund. Many point to the enormous general deficits and argue, justifiably, that the federal government may not be able to honor its commitment to Social Security.
Even if the government is able to repay what it has borrowed, however, this does not address the true danger. As the government continues to shift money between the two funds, the delineation between Social Security and other programs will become muddled and distort funding priorities. This was not the intention of the creators of Social Security when they made provision for a distinct trust fund and a separate revenue form in the payroll tax.
Should the government wish to continue to ignore the intended autonomy of the Social Security trust fund, it should take this policy stance to its natural end: Social Security revenues and liabilities should be pooled into the general budget (http://******/y5hMvv).
1. "From 1983 until last year, Social Security revenues actually lowered the Treasury's need to borrow in the public markets, as excess payroll taxes collected under Social Security's flag helped fund other government programs."
Why were all those SS funds diverted and used for other things? We paid in specifically for SS. The Govt. should not have robbed from Peter to pay Paul. How much was stolen over this time period? Incomplete reporting. You should have provided that information as well. A total amount that is owed SS.
2. "Myth No. 2- Social Security benefits are earned; reducing them amounts to confiscation"
Really? Tell that to a 50 year old that has seen the maximum SS payments taken out of their paychecks yearly for decades. We were not given an option were we? Where do you get off alluding to the concept that we don't have anything coming to us? Are you saying that person hasn't earned squat? Tough luck bub? Congress can reset it and send you a SS bill instead of a check someday?
This smacks of the same BullSh@t the Govt. pulled on honorably discharged Veterans in 2003. No longer did an honorably discharged Veteran have any medical benefits for serving automatically through the VA. Afterward 2003 you had to serve between certain elaborate dates or make more than a certain amount of money. Oh, and good luck going to the VA and simply trying to figure out exactly what that number is. The VA goes has purposely turned the entire system into a nightmare for those who didn't file for the benefit prior to 2003. They go waaay out of their way to hide and keep that info from you. They don't want to support Veterans. It was an absolutely rotten thing to do. Exactly what some white collar bean counter who never served a day in his life (and someone who has great medical coverage themselves) would do to those that did serve and don't have coverage.
4. Myth #4: The trust fund is invested in Treasury bonds, the most secure investments in the world. To suggest that the trust fund wouldn't pay is blatant fear mongering.
"Remember, Congress (that is, you know, taxpayers) can cut benefits -- and thus postpone the need for Social Security to redeem any bonds -- just by passing a law."
"In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today's rates isn't a question of credit quality. It's a question of politics and priorities."
You sound like a lawyer. Here's another thing for you to think about. We, the people, put those people in Congress in the first place. You sound as if those people in Congress are the ones calling all the shots and we, the lowly peasants, have to eat whatever they dictate to us. I'd like to make a small and humble prediction that any Congress that messes with drastically changing SS or reducing benefits will amount to political suicide for those involved. Just because the Govt. got away with it and threw our Veterans under the bus in 2003 doesn't mean the American public won't stand by and do nothing. There are a lot more people that are vested in SS than are Veterans. Not so easy to hide from them.
Maybe you have spent too much time around white collar, wall street rich guys Eric. Down here in Blue Collar Land we DO look at SS as something far more tangible. It's our system. The one that really matters. It's the only safety net most of us have and it was a promise made. That and Medicare and Medicaid. That's a disconnect that the Rich guys who are so used to sh@tting on everyone under them have missed the point about.
We are counting on it. They are all so quick to throw the system under the bus when it becomes tough. Convert it into a 401K plan and or reduce benefits. Whatever is easiest for your spreadsheets to handle and that doesn't cut into your Golf time too much. Most of your friends probably have fantastic IRA's and 401K's and stock options and investments and all the other BS the privileged have. Good for you. Congratulations. Guess what? SS was started in the first place specifically so Blue Collar people won't be destitute in their old age. Get it wall street money man?
SS maybe just a cutesy article to you this week and you may have had some fun poking us blue collar people with your observations, but remember this. This is a very, very serious thing to most Americans, especially blue collar ones. SS is as serious as it gets, short of all out war and we have to respond to the draft. SS is something a lot of us are COUNTING ON to be there AS IT IS NOW. I think you underestimate just how important the promise made (and cash paid in over a lifetime) is worth to people.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
THEN TELL ME IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE COMMON WORKER'S?? I WANT MY ONE QUESTION ANSWERED- "PLEASE"...WHO WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT THAT TAPPED INTO OR GAVE PERMISSION TO- TAP INTO SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY? And look back years ago...you will see it actually had a SURPLUS of money in it!
It would definitely would be our OWN GOVERNMENT STEALING from us- if they do not replace this money for the Middle and Lower Class WORKERS!
The extra cash was only allowed to be used to purchase U.S. Treasury Bonds. After all, they are considered the safest investment in the world and have never been defaulted on. Unfortunately, from the start the fund was used as a piggy bank by successive administrations. Right away the Reagan administration used the money from the sale of those bonds to the trust fund to cut taxes, mostly for the wealthy and to fund a military build up that made it impossible for the Soviet Union to keep pace. Meanwhile, his small government administration was borrowing even more money, running a deficit and actually expanding social programs. We had more of the same from the elder Bush. His attempt at fiscal responsibility, a tax increase came back to haunt him later because it cause him to break his campaign promise of "No New Taxes". Even with those tax increases we had more deficits along with expansion of social programs, an economic stimulus package, then more military spending on the first Gulf War.
Under Clinton the budget was actually balanced but then when the younger Bush took office all bets were off. First we had 9/11 and the reaction to that. We became involved in the war in Afganistan to go after Al-Qaeda and it's Taliban protectors. That was all understandable and necessary, but on top of that we started a second war in Iraq to go after non-existant weapons. That war dragged on and on, costing billions of dollars not even budgeted for year after year. We took our eyes off the ball in Afganistan and gave up most of the gains we had made there and extending our involvemment there. While we were spending all that money on two wars we had another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, an expansion of medicaid and various economic schemes to keep the economy pumped up.
Now we are almost four years into the Obama administration. The final months of the Bush years brought on an economic collapse not seen in the US since the Hoover administration. It's effects were worldwide. To it's credit the Bush administration reacted quickly. They engineered a $1TRILLION bailout of the largest banks, effectively nationalizing them by taking equity in return. All the largest banks were required to participate so the weaker ones wouldn't be singled out by investors and there were no strings attached to the gift we gave them.
Meanwhile, as the Bush administration was winding down, a bailout of the auto industry and a halfhearted economic stimulus package were being prepared by Congress. Obama took office just in time to sign off on those projects. Under Obama the "payroll tax" has been cut to help put more cash in people's pockets. The problem with that is that the payroll tax is another name for the part of your taxes designated to fund Social Security and Medicare. So, just as the baby boomers are retiring, many of them forced to begin taking benefits as their jobs were eliminated we are reducing the amount going in to those programs.
We were able to spend more than we were taking in to the budget without the resorting to the inflationary money printing policies of the Nixon ,Ford and Carter administrations. Do you remember in the 2000 election, Al Gore promised to put the trust fund into a "lock box"? Most people just laughed at him over that because they didn't know what the trust fund was or how it was being abused.
So the short answer to the question of who stole that money, is it was us. We loaned it to ourselves and squandered it. Or at least, we elected the politicians who were willing to borrow that money to give us all those things without paying for them. We are leaving it to our children to pay back the money we lent to ourselves. Now that we are starting to have to withdraw money from the trust fund, the politicians are looking for a way to get out of re-paying the debt. The writer of the above article kept implying that for some reason, the bonds we sold to the trust fund aren't real debts and don't really have to be repaid. That those debts can be simply ignored without consequence.
I don't know what Gore planned to do with the money the government was getting from selling bonds to the trust fund though. Simply not spending it would have had disasterous effects on the economy. We would have effectively removed those dollars from circulation. That would have led to some combination of higher taxes and reductions in government spending. It probably would have caused deflation now as dollars were removed from circulation, followed by inflation later as that money was being spent back into the economy. It was incredibly shortsighted of our leaders to begin making all that borrowed money available to the politicians without a plan on how to spend it.
We could have spent that money making sure our children were the best educated workforce in the world, better able to shoulder the burden we are asking them to take on. Instead, we cut student aid and privatized educational lending, leaving those who do manage to get an education without their parents being able to write the large checks necessary, deep in debt to the banks or even worse, saddled with all that debt and having a worthless degree since there was no longer much oversight over what programs were eligible for loans. We encouraged our children to enter the military, not to defend our shores but to project our force around the world. They are delaying their entry into the work force and often leaving the military with physical or emotional disabilities that will follow them the rest of their lives.
We could have put in place policies that would have encouraged our businesses to grow within or country, providing jobs to our children. Instead we gave our wealthiest citizens tax cuts in the naive hope they would re-invest that money into building our economy. Instead, they invested in closing factories here and building new ones elsewhere where labor is cheap and they don't have to worry about environmental regulations or child labor laws. Now many of what once were our strongest businesses consider themselves to be multi-nationals without any obligation to our nation or it's citizens.
So, I guess the only takeaway from this dismal assessment of where we stand today is that we have missed our chance to prepare for the aging of our generation. Who knows whether our children will be willing to pay into a system that burdens them unfairly in exchange for a promise that their children will do the same for them. Just rememberwhen you vote next month, who it was that put tax cuts forthe wealthiest Americans ahead of investment in our future.
Also I would like to thank BAM4756 for lowering Regan's status of the "greatest President" down to "the killer of the middleclass" where he needs to be.
Why don't we stiff the Chinese instead?
He is incorrect on Myths #2,#3 and #4. He may not realize that he has "bought" the progressive explanations he uses for those Myths!
Myth #2: Social Security is NOT earned and NOT an entitlement. Social Security funds are OBLIGATORY DEPOSITS by U.S. workers that have been withdrawn from their paychecks by the U.S Government. The Gov't OWES
these funds back to the worker upon attaining qualifying age, just like the bank owes you back your savings and checking deposits when you ask for them. What do you call the money subtracted from our paychecks every payday - DONATIONS! So, S.S. is not earned or entitled, it is an OWED deposit. It would be fair to say that the Corporate contributions could be put under "earned" or "entitled", but if they are not paid to us, they are owed back to the Corps. If the Gov't does not give back these deposits to individuals or Corps...the correct term for that behavior is called STEALING!
Myth #3: There is NO Social Security Trust Fund now. It is a pay as you go obligation the Gov't. has been taking out of the General Fund for decades. The Gov't had U.S. Acounting absolve that fund, back in the 70's, and had the deposits put into the General Fund because of it's "shortfall of funds" to cover U.S. expenses and not show the REAL deficit since then. Clever Gov't bookkeeping/accounting, but if anyone else does that, Corporately, business-wise or personally, they call if FRAUD, not CLEVER! There may be an ENTRY called the Social Security Fund, but it is a shadow entry as no funds are deposited there ...they just kind of "bypass" it on their way into the General Fund.
Myth #4: STOP the BIG LIE (or denial). THE U.S. is BROKE. Actually, it is way more than broke...that would be a zero balance. The U.S. has a 4 TRILLION dollar DEFICIT...that is way south of zero. They actually call that negative. If the other world governments cashed in all of their U.S. Treasuries and other bond obligations to cover their national deficites (except China), GAME OVER. Treasuries are only floating on time and the "PROMISE" of the U.S. Gov't to pay it's debt over time with TAX COLLECTIONS - which way do you think they are going...if you guessed down...drink some more cool-aid! They can only pay these on a time dispersement basis, not a CASH basis because these I.O.U.'s are not back by anything, except a PROMISE. We went off the Gold Standard decades ago, as well, so nothing backs up our money except a promise. When you go ask for your funds, do you want cash, gold or a promise? How much are PROMISES going for today!
This may not be an accepted "POLITICALLY CORRECT" response, but it is the truth. Go check Google on these things. You almost have to make a mokery out of our existing financial reality to wake people up because they have fallen asleep, don't care, want to believe it will work itself out or a lot of other reasons to explain the REALITY we do not want to accept away. Countries will continue to buy U.S. Treasuries and not cash them in because they know it could not be done before the maturity dates. And WHY is that? Because the only thing saving us(synonomous with the U.S.), is the fact that other countries NEED our consumers to buy their exports. They are not going to kill the Goose giving them the eggs they need. So, the world economy is really locked into a "DON'T BLINK" game and that is what's keeping so many Governments and the U.S. up, even though they are all technically, financially and really broke.
In short...the whole planet is in a gigantic "PONZY SCHEME". So sleep well tonight and don't fret. Everything is fine if we just don't check the accounting or the math or the explanations or the reality. PRETENDING is the new reality.
The truth can hurt, but I am an American and I want to believe that we will overcome the fog we are in. We have to...or we will just be another Third World Country.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8334-505125_162-57364896/5-social-security-myths-that-have-to-go/#ixzz1ko6Pmuax
When the Obama administration allowed the 1% to continue their tax cut he allowed the middle class a cut also. However, that cut was not in our taxes but a cut in our SS payments. Add that cut into SS and the government's proclivity to "borrow" from SS leaving us with I.O.U.'s in the form of bonds that must be paid WITH INTEREST and of course SS is running low. The problem with this story is the same problem with government: These people represent the top 1%, NOT the middle class. So it is natural for them to present government's P.O.V.. You'll notice there's no mention of saving money by stopping our perpetual wars or closing at least half our based situated around the world which dump millions monthly into foreign countries' economy. That's because the 1% depend on bloated salaries, bonuses and golden parachutes - not SS. In other words, to the top 1% SS is an unnecessary luxury they don't want to afford.
The solution: Stop electing millionaire lawyers and Wall Streeters. Look for people who serve their community unselfishly, honestly regardless of party.
They should have never borrowed from that fund to start with. Corporations are audited every year to ensure that they are depositing 401K funds, or have money allocated to cover promised pension plans. If any company did what the government has done, there would executives in PRISON for it.
Americans need to wake up and vote in some responsible accountants, auditors and honest business men to protect our retirement account and the future economy of this country. You don't bail out big businesses to save a nation, you allow citizens to use their money to decide who stays in business!
Many citizens here reflect the true opinion of the American worker about Social Security. We paid into for years, and we are going to get our checks! This article is crap.
Even if the government is able to repay what it has borrowed, however, this does not address the true danger. As the government continues to shift money between the two funds, the delineation between Social Security and other programs will become muddled and distort funding priorities. This was not the intention of the creators of Social Security when they made provision for a distinct trust fund and a separate revenue form in the payroll tax.
Should the government wish to continue to ignore the intended autonomy of the Social Security trust fund, it should take this policy stance to its natural end: Social Security revenues and liabilities should be pooled into the general budget (http://******/y5hMvv).
1.
"From 1983 until last year, Social Security revenues actually lowered the Treasury's need to borrow in the public markets, as excess payroll taxes collected under Social Security's flag helped fund other government programs."
Why were all those SS funds diverted and used for other things? We paid in specifically for SS. The Govt. should not have robbed from Peter to pay Paul. How much was stolen over this time period? Incomplete reporting. You should have provided that information as well. A total amount that is owed SS.
2.
"Myth No. 2- Social Security benefits are earned; reducing them amounts to confiscation"
Really? Tell that to a 50 year old that has seen the maximum SS payments taken out of their paychecks yearly for decades. We were not given an option were we? Where do you get off alluding to the concept that we don't have anything coming to us? Are you saying that person hasn't earned squat? Tough luck bub? Congress can reset it and send you a SS bill instead of a check someday?
This smacks of the same BullSh@t the Govt. pulled on honorably discharged Veterans in 2003. No longer did an honorably discharged Veteran have any medical benefits for serving automatically through the VA. Afterward 2003 you had to serve between certain elaborate dates or make more than a certain amount of money. Oh, and good luck going to the VA and simply trying to figure out exactly what that number is. The VA goes has purposely turned the entire system into a nightmare for those who didn't file for the benefit prior to 2003. They go waaay out of their way to hide and keep that info from you. They don't want to support Veterans. It was an absolutely rotten thing to do. Exactly what some white collar bean counter who never served a day in his life (and someone who has great medical coverage themselves) would do to those that did serve and don't have coverage.
4.
Myth #4: The trust fund is invested in Treasury bonds, the most secure investments in the world. To suggest that the trust fund wouldn't pay is blatant fear mongering.
"Remember, Congress (that is, you know, taxpayers) can cut benefits -- and thus postpone the need for Social Security to redeem any bonds -- just by passing a law."
"In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today's rates isn't a question of credit quality. It's a question of politics and priorities."
You sound like a lawyer. Here's another thing for you to think about. We, the people, put those people in Congress in the first place. You sound as if those people in Congress are the ones calling all the shots and we, the lowly peasants, have to eat whatever they dictate to us. I'd like to make a small and humble prediction that any Congress that messes with drastically changing SS or reducing benefits will amount to political suicide for those involved. Just because the Govt. got away with it and threw our Veterans under the bus in 2003 doesn't mean the American public won't stand by and do nothing. There are a lot more people that are vested in SS than are Veterans. Not so easy to hide from them.
Maybe you have spent too much time around white collar, wall street rich guys Eric. Down here in Blue Collar Land we DO look at SS as something far more tangible. It's our system. The one that really matters. It's the only safety net most of us have and it was a promise made. That and Medicare and Medicaid. That's a disconnect that the Rich guys who are so used to sh@tting on everyone under them have missed the point about.
We are counting on it. They are all so quick to throw the system under the bus when it becomes tough. Convert it into a 401K plan and or reduce benefits. Whatever is easiest for your spreadsheets to handle and that doesn't cut into your Golf time too much. Most of your friends probably have fantastic IRA's and 401K's and stock options and investments and all the other BS the privileged have. Good for you. Congratulations. Guess what? SS was started in the first place specifically so Blue Collar people won't be destitute in their old age. Get it wall street money man?
SS maybe just a cutesy article to you this week and you may have had some fun poking us blue collar people with your observations, but remember this. This is a very, very serious thing to most Americans, especially blue collar ones. SS is as serious as it gets, short of all out war and we have to respond to the draft. SS is something a lot of us are COUNTING ON to be there AS IT IS NOW. I think you underestimate just how important the promise made (and cash paid in over a lifetime) is worth to people.