Who Stole Social Security

[CrusaderFrank]

LBJ robbed the trust fund to pay for his Vietnam War.

I can't identify who then changed the assets in the Trust Fund so that they're virtually worthless and can only be sold to the US government

THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Social Security History

STUPID RIGHT WINGERS

Bernie Madoff tried that accounting, look where it got him

This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

The Operations ARE the problem! It own Fugazi bonds that can only be sold to one buyer

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

LBJ robbed the trust fund to pay for his Vietnam War.

I can't identify who then changed the assets in the Trust Fund so that they're virtually worthless and can only be sold to the US government

THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Social Security History

STUPID RIGHT WINGERS

Seek help... your obsession with Reagan is very unhealthy.

Oh right Ronnie ONLY gets credit for policy you Klowns like

The man's been dead for how long?

 

[boedicca]

Social security has no assets, only IOU's that can only be redeemed by the federal government

And?

And the only way for future beneficiaries to be paid is for the taxes of younger workers to be increased. It's the Old mugging the Rich.

It's NOT a Trust Fund.

 

[Dad2three]

Social security has no assets, only IOU's that can only be redeemed by the federal government

And?

And the only way for future beneficiaries to be paid is for the taxes of younger workers to be increased. It's the Old mugging the Rich.

It's NOT a Trust Fund.

Weird how Ronnie increased SS taxes by $3 trillion to hide the cost of tax cuts for the rich, but now CONservatives don't want to pay it back, right?

 

[Dad2three]

LBJ robbed the trust fund to pay for his Vietnam War.

I can't identify who then changed the assets in the Trust Fund so that they're virtually worthless and can only be sold to the US government

THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Social Security History

STUPID RIGHT WINGERS

Bernie Madoff tried that accounting, look where it got him

This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

The Operations ARE the problem! It own Fugazi bonds that can only be sold to one buyer

You do understand UNTIL Ronnie "saved" SS, there wasn't much of a "surplus" right dumbass? And like ANY other US debt, it's STILL backed by the US Gov't just like bonds I own?

SS WAS SET UP AS A "PAY GO" OPERATION DUMMY

 

[Dad2three]

LBJ robbed the trust fund to pay for his Vietnam War.

I can't identify who then changed the assets in the Trust Fund so that they're virtually worthless and can only be sold to the US government

THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Social Security History

STUPID RIGHT WINGERS

Seek help... your obsession with Reagan is very unhealthy.

Oh right Ronnie ONLY gets credit for policy you Klowns like

The man's been dead for how long?

Yet his policies STILL haunt US. Weird right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LBJ robbed the trust fund to pay for his Vietnam War.

I can't identify who then changed the assets in the Trust Fund so that they're virtually worthless and can only be sold to the US government

THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Social Security History

STUPID RIGHT WINGERS

Bernie Madoff tried that accounting, look where it got him

This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

The Operations ARE the problem! It own Fugazi bonds that can only be sold to one buyer

You do understand UNTIL Ronnie "saved" SS, there wasn't much of a "surplus" right dumbass? And like ANY other US debt, it's STILL backed by the US Gov't just like bonds I own?

SS WAS SET UP AS A "PAY GO" OPERATION DUMMY

I'll go slowly for you.

The bonds in the "Trust Fund" are a special issue, unlike other US bonds, they can only be sold to the US Government.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social security has no assets, only IOU's that can only be redeemed by the federal government

Frank,

The SSA says that there the financial resources exist. In order for your statement to be true, it means that there would be a conspiracy. That conspiracy would require liberals work with conservatives, Republicans work with Democrats, and not one employee of the SSA to break the ranks of indecency. It would require Obama to cover for Bush, Bush to cover for Clinton, and the trustees to cover for everyone. In terms of conspiracy, it is more likely that the second shooter on the grassy knoll was an alien who escaped from Roswell, NM. It is possible though.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The most popular response to the question how did Social Security go off track is : someone (insert a variety of names) stole the money. Chris Christie - the only candidate willing to talk about Social Security - has invoked the crazy card in both of the GOP debates. They stole it without ever asserting who 'they' is.

There is exactly zero evidence that any money has been misused. What people call 'worthless IOUs', investment professionals call cash equivalents. The Trust Fund today is what separates us from immediate 12% reduction in benefits.

It is easier for people to believe that someone stole the money rather than the system is simply broken, spinning promises out of control.

The longer article is now Independent Voter News,
Despite What You've Heard, No One Is Stealing from Social Security - IVN.us

Oh you mean the nearly $3 trillion in excess payments when Ronnie Raygun "saved SS" and increased taxes on the working man, as he gutted taxes on the rich and tripled the debt (not counting the excess $3 trillion the next 30 years)?

It is probably closer to $1 trillion in excess payments which has grown with interest to the present 2.8 trillion held in the Trust Fund.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have?

A combination of factual inaccuracy and noise spewed by Bernie Sanders. Sanders solution has dropped from 75 years to 46 - provided that the economy cooperates. Sander's is the king of disinformation on Social Security.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Ohh the irony of your cartoon... The collective bargain-loving teachers don't participate in Social Security.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social security has no assets, only IOU's that can only be redeemed by the federal government

Government bonds ARE assets fuckwit.

Not when they can only be sold to the Federal Government.

They're Fugazis

Hmmm... You realize that the bonds held by the Trust Fund contain a put option. Why would you make a bond with a put marketable?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social security has no assets, only IOU's that can only be redeemed by the federal government

Yup and it was doing just fine till LBJ needed money for the Vietnam war.

He put SS in the General Fund and they have been robbing it blind ever since.

Want to blame someone for the condition of SS? Blame the Democrat LBJ.

From the article :

Social Security was a pay-as-you-go system until 1983. By definition, there was almost nothing to steal from the program. Almost every dollar collected in payroll taxes is distributed as benefits. When LBJ arrived in office in 1964, the system had accumulated roughly $21 billion of reserves over 25 years. When he left there was less than $29 billion. No, $8 billion in surplus cash did not pay for Vietnam.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social security has no assets, only IOU's that can only be redeemed by the federal government

Government bonds ARE assets fuckwit.

So are receivables, but they are only as good as the debtors ability to pay.... fuckwit.

In the case of the US government, are only as good as the debtors ability to print money.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The Operations ARE the problem! It own Fugazi bonds that can only be sold to one buyer

You are obsessed with this observation. Why?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social security has no assets, only IOU's that can only be redeemed by the federal government

And?

And the only way for future beneficiaries to be paid is for the taxes of younger workers to be increased. It's the Old mugging the Rich.

It's NOT a Trust Fund.

Weird how Ronnie increased SS taxes by $3 trillion to hide the cost of tax cuts for the rich, but now CONservatives don't want to pay it back, right?

One of the facts that I wasn't able to fit into the 600 words. Social Security was cashflow negative for the first 5 years of Reagans presidency. It was slightly more than break-even over the next two. Over his eight year term the system hid about 75 billion in deficit. Opps.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You do understand UNTIL Ronnie "saved" SS, there wasn't much of a "surplus" right dumbass? And like ANY other US debt, it's STILL backed by the US Gov't just like bonds I own?

SS WAS SET UP AS A "PAY GO" OPERATION DUMMY

It would be best to either get accurate facts, or a broken cap-shift. FDR completely rejected what we have now. It was turned into a pay as you go system in the 1940s through the 1960s. FDR actually veto'd legislation which waived his planned tax increases - Congress overrode his veto.

 

[Care4all]

LBJ robbed the trust fund to pay for his Vietnam War.

I can't identify who then changed the assets in the Trust Fund so that they're virtually worthless and can only be sold to the US government

That's simply not true.

LBJ added social security to the budget to HIDE the percentage being spent on defence spending, so it appeared we spent a lower percentage of our budget on the War....

HE DID NOT USE SOCIAL SECURITY to pay for the War....

Social security was PAY AS YOU GO back then, there were no SS Surplus funds to steal....

Until REAGAN doubled the SS Taxes we had to pay with his tax hike on us....in the 80s.

 

[Claudette]

Today, the federal government automatically puts all of the money that should be set aside for the Social Security Trust Fund into the General Fund. Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund was a precedent set in 1968 by another progressive president, Lyndon B. Johnson, to help pay for the Vietnam War. To date, the federal government has borrowed over $2 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund to spend on other programs.

Contrary to what many Americans believe and what progressives love to say, there is no money in the Trust Fund to pay future benefits. Furthermore, the fundamentally flawed program faces a severe demographic crisis as members of the baby boom generation begin to retire. The mess we face with Social Security, a program so many are now dependent on, is yet another example of a failed progressive policy, where the potential for unintended consequences was ignored at the program's inception.

Lyndon Johnson on Social Security

 

[Care4all]

The most popular response to the question how did Social Security go off track is : someone (insert a variety of names) stole the money. Chris Christie - the only candidate willing to talk about Social Security - has invoked the crazy card in both of the GOP debates. They stole it without ever asserting who 'they' is.

There is exactly zero evidence that any money has been misused. What people call 'worthless IOUs', investment professionals call cash equivalents. The Trust Fund today is what separates us from immediate 12% reduction in benefits.

It is easier for people to believe that someone stole the money rather than the system is simply broken, spinning promises out of control.

The longer article is now Independent Voter News,
Despite What You've Heard, No One Is Stealing from Social Security - IVN.us

Oh you mean the nearly $3 trillion in excess payments when Ronnie Raygun "saved SS" and increased taxes on the working man, as he gutted taxes on the rich and tripled the debt (not counting the excess $3 trillion the next 30 years)?

It is probably closer to $1 trillion in excess payments which has grown with interest to the present 2.8 trillion held in the Trust Fund.

It's 3 trillion either way.....if we kept our surplus payments in our own hands, we would have earned our own interest on it, or driven the economy if spent....