Who Stole Social Security

[Dad2three]

"I also reached out to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) who sits on the same subcommittee, however, his office didn’t respond in time for publication. I did, however, receive a comment from an unnamed Senate aide who said,

“The Social Security Trust Fund represents a bonds-backed promise to finance a certain level of Social Security spending. However, it does not provide economic assets to fulfill that promise. While the trust fund represents an asset to the Social Security program, it represents an equal liability to the Treasury which must come from new taxes, spending cuts, or additional borrowing.”

Is The Social Security Trust Fund Solvent?

D'oh!

Yep, funny how CONservatives/GOP were OK with stealing the money to begin with, but NOW don't want to pay it back right Bubba?

 

[Dad2three]

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....

And every house would have two inlaws suites.

Weird, better to have $3 trillion to "pay back" right Bubs?

Why do you continue to embarrasse yourself daddy to pee pee?

It was never 3 trillion

True Bubba, Ronnie "saving SS" was nearly $2.8 trillion in excess funds, that hid the cost of tax cuts for the richest!

Trust Fund Data

 

[Campbell]

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

Well don't monkey around with it for a while. My wife and I each draw a monthly check and it makes retired life a little easier. I paid into it from 1949 till 1993 and my wife from 1967 till 2012(She's 15 Years Younger Than I Am)

What folks who are against social security should understand is what it was like before social security began to pay benefits in the late 1940's. "County Poor Farms".....Back in those days people would have starved to death had it not been for county owned property, usually consisting of a big house and a few acres where multiple individuals could manage to sleep and eat. The ones who were physically able raised big gardens and limited livestock so that through canning, slaughtering, smoking, preserving etc. they could make it one season at a time. Folks who didn't have good means to stay afloat financially would make wise cracks like, "I Guess I'll End Up In The Poor House"
Unmarked graves can be found all over this country from those old farms. Social Security accomplished exactly what FDR intended. It allowed a little dignity for those with limited means to live out their years.
Like many other social programs which kept poor folks alive and instilled some hope in their hearts social security changed the culture in this country and screw the rich folks.....of course they don't like it because they don't need it and it requires them to pay into it and draw it whether they want to or not.
After a person has experienced real hunger they will always have a different outlook on the plight of the poor. Most should have been around back in the 1930's before the 2nd World War started.

Right now the only thing social security needs is for the rich to pay beyond the set cutoff. For those who might not understand...an employee pays into social security on the first $117,000 of earnings. After that nothing is withheld. What should be done is the $117,000 should be adjusted to $500,000 and the system would be set and solid for fifty years. Or we could keep letting the rich get more and more of the pie, to infinity. 'Course that will end up in pure unadulterated Revolt. No civilized society has ever lasted long after the rich got it all:

 

[Londoner]

The OP should be proud of his party, but instead he is trying to revise history.

Reagan launched the most aggressive tax cuts for the wealthy in American history - and he needed to offset it by raising revenue in other places.

So he and uncle Milty hatched a highly regressive Social Security tax that would fall exclusively on wages (as opposed to say capital gains or anything that would more directly affect the wealthy).

Reagan put the proceeds from this tax in a trust, and he promised to save it for SS payouts. But then - funny thing - his team "borrowed" the money to fund expensive programs, mostly in defense. It was brilliant. It was pure trickery designed to make-up for revenue shortfalls.

But it gets worse. Team Reagan began to borrow from projected future earnings of the fund.

Indeed, to pay for his government spending, ol' Reagan actually borrowed money that wasn't fucking there. Each time he needed to make his exploding budget look better he would have his lawyers put a another IOU in the SS trust fund, virtually bankrupting it and making it look like it was a problem with Social Security.

Fast forward to today where we have Republican think tanks trying to convince Americans that the trust fund's insolvency reflects problems with security as opposed to just saying the truth:

"We don't have the tax money that you contributed to SS. We fucking stole it so we could give subsidies to oil monopolies and bail out our banker buddies. Oh, and guess what? We also diverted some of the money to think tanks and popular media so that they could create bogus talking points and articles exonerating us."

The OP should turn off talk radio.

(God Help Us. He votes)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I also reached out to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) who sits on the same subcommittee, however, his office didn’t respond in time for publication. I did, however, receive a comment from an unnamed Senate aide who said,

“The Social Security Trust Fund represents a bonds-backed promise to finance a certain level of Social Security spending. However, it does not provide economic assets to fulfill that promise. While the trust fund represents an asset to the Social Security program, it represents an equal liability to the Treasury which must come from new taxes, spending cuts, or additional borrowing.”

Is The Social Security Trust Fund Solvent?

D'oh!

Yep, funny how CONservatives/GOP were OK with stealing the money to begin with, but NOW don't want to pay it back right Bubba?

What the fuck are you babbling about?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Social Security needs to be privatized and invested in equities

 

[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.

Source? I know the excess payments were to COVER the revenues lost by Ronnie gutting taxes for the rich.

Not long ago you said it was 3 trillion. There was only 75 billion of excess funds while Reagan was President.

Did he say that? I believe he said due to the SS TAX HIKE, under Reagan, that created these future surpluses, which has come to almost 3 trillion....over a 30 year period.....not all under his reign, but because of his reign....and the legislation and bills he supported....

The SS hikes were spaced out to get to the final hike goal, like minimum wage hikes, not all at once.

Clinton, and Bush2s budgets benefited the most in masking the budget on the surface.

BUSH 2, took the estimated 5.6 trillion in SS surplus, and gave tax cuts to the people who paid income taxes, and distributed this est. Surplus in tax cuts to the very people who paid the least percentage of their incomes in SS TAXES....at the very top via income tax breaks.....

BUT THE SURPLUS they estimated CAME from Social Security tax revenue.

 

[Campbell]

The OP should be proud of his party, but instead he is trying to revise history.

Reagan launched the most aggressive tax cuts for the wealthy in American history - and he needed to offset it by raising revenue in other places.

So he and uncle Milty hatched a highly regressive Social Security tax that would fall exclusively on wages (as opposed to say capital gains or anything that would more directly affect the wealthy).

Reagan put the proceeds from this tax in a trust, and he promised to save it for SS payouts. But then - funny thing - his team "borrowed" the money to fund expensive programs, mostly in defense. It was brilliant. It was pure trickery designed to make-up for revenue shortfalls.

But it gets worse. Team Reagan began to borrow from projected future earnings of the fund.

Indeed, to pay for his government spending, ol' Reagan actually borrowed money that wasn't fucking there. Each time he needed to make his exploding budget look better he would have his lawyers put a another IOU in the SS trust fund, virtually bankrupting it and making it look like it was a problem with Social Security.

Fast forward to today where we have Republican think tanks trying to convince Americans that the trust fund's insolvency reflects problems with security as opposed to just saying the truth:

"We don't have the tax money that you contributed to SS. We fucking stole it so we could give subsidies to oil monopolies and bail out our banker buddies. Oh, and guess what? We also diverted some of the money to think tanks and popular media so that they could create bogus talking points and articles exonerating us."

The OP should turn off talk radio.

(God Help Us. He votes)

Don't you just love the way all the greedy right wing assholes have made a hero out of the tax cutting, money spending, dumbass movie star who funneled three trillion borrowed dollars into the hands of the richest people in this country. Just in case there's somebody who doesn't already know it...."Trickle Down" not only didn't work it set this nation onto a path to bankruptcy:


.................................Total U S Debt.......................................
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Dad2three]

Social Security needs to be privatized and invested in equities

lol, Sure ANOTHER right winger who doesn't understand what the SS system is and isn't. Hint it's WASN'T supposed to be the sole retirement income of seniors, but Corps (the "job creators" ) had a different idea!


IT'S CALLED INSURANCE DUMBASS!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Social Security needs to be privatized and invested in equities

lol, Sure ANOTHER right winger who doesn't understand what the SS system is and isn't. Hint it's WASN'T supposed to be the sole retirement income of seniors, but Corps (the "job creators" ) had a different idea!


IT'S CALLED INSURANCE DUMBASS!

Civil Service pensions can invest in equities

 

[Dad2three]

"I also reached out to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) who sits on the same subcommittee, however, his office didn’t respond in time for publication. I did, however, receive a comment from an unnamed Senate aide who said,

“The Social Security Trust Fund represents a bonds-backed promise to finance a certain level of Social Security spending. However, it does not provide economic assets to fulfill that promise. While the trust fund represents an asset to the Social Security program, it represents an equal liability to the Treasury which must come from new taxes, spending cuts, or additional borrowing.”

Is The Social Security Trust Fund Solvent?

D'oh!

Yep, funny how CONservatives/GOP were OK with stealing the money to begin with, but NOW don't want to pay it back right Bubba?

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Just speaking TRUTH to the ignorant fool...

 

[Dad2three]

Social Security needs to be privatized and invested in equities

lol, Sure ANOTHER right winger who doesn't understand what the SS system is and isn't. Hint it's WASN'T supposed to be the sole retirement income of seniors, but Corps (the "job creators" ) had a different idea!


IT'S CALLED INSURANCE DUMBASS!

Civil Service pensions can invest in equities

NOT insurance program and NOT set up the same as a 401k. Got it...

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

"Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:

When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.
According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:

These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. [Emphasis added.]"

Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works

if you were educated you would realize that this statement is fairly stupid : "However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:" What is the "however". The fact that the SSA can "redeem" the bonds means that they are better than the bonds held by the 'private-sector' trust funds. The person who wrote that sentence does not understand markets or assets. It is click-bait for the army of useful fools.

Your next paragraph would be meaningful if.... the government were liable for the promises of Social Security. It isn't. So the government isn't lending to own of its "OWN" accounts. The government is a fiduciary. The OMB statement may deal with other trust funds like the EPA, where the government has to pay for the clean-up one way or another.

Not sure what genius wrote paragraph 3, but I have bad news for that person. These assets are the exact same assets that are held by private pensions. If these aren't economic assets - why do private pension funds buy them? If the securities held in the Trust Fund were of lower standing in the credit structure of the debtor then you might have a case. Here you have quoted someone who thinks claims on the Treasury aren't real economic assets. If that were true... pension fund managers would be going to jail.

If you are going high-and-mighty please quote smarter people.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Says a Klown who "thinks" there was only $1 trillion in excess payments, lol

It is me. The Klown is the Social Security Administration which says that between 1980 and 2014, the excess cash created by SS is .... about 600 billion. The rest is interest on the excess cash. Here is the source : Trust Fund Data

BZZ Sorry Klown boy, your own link says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

NOTE HOW THE "TRUST FUND" WENT FROM $760 BILLION IN 1998 TO $2,8 TRILLION BY 2014? SURGE OF INTEREST PAYMENTS HUH? LOL
Net increase during year
1998- $106,950 BILLION (EXCESS SS PAYMENTS)
1999- 133,673
2000- 153,312
2001- 163,088
2002- 165,432
2003- 152,799
2004- 156,075
2005- 171,821
2006- 189,452

$600 BILLION IN 34 YEARS HUH BUBS? LOL



YOUR APOLOGY IS COMING I ASSUME BUBBA?


Trust Fund Data

Until you can read charts you might want to tone down the caps and bold.

You are quoting total revenue (which includes public subsidies by the way). Excess cash = payroll taxes collected - expenses. As I told you the rest is interest. Learn to read.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

"I also reached out to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) who sits on the same subcommittee, however, his office didn’t respond in time for publication. I did, however, receive a comment from an unnamed Senate aide who said,

“The Social Security Trust Fund represents a bonds-backed promise to finance a certain level of Social Security spending. However, it does not provide economic assets to fulfill that promise. While the trust fund represents an asset to the Social Security program, it represents an equal liability to the Treasury which must come from new taxes, spending cuts, or additional borrowing.”

Is The Social Security Trust Fund Solvent?

D'oh!

I would consider the possibility that the 19 year-old aide to Senator Portman probably isn't a reliable source for information.

 

[Dad2three]

Says a Klown who "thinks" there was only $1 trillion in excess payments, lol

It is me. The Klown is the Social Security Administration which says that between 1980 and 2014, the excess cash created by SS is .... about 600 billion. The rest is interest on the excess cash. Here is the source : Trust Fund Data

BZZ Sorry Klown boy, your own link says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

NOTE HOW THE "TRUST FUND" WENT FROM $760 BILLION IN 1998 TO $2,8 TRILLION BY 2014? SURGE OF INTEREST PAYMENTS HUH? LOL
Net increase during year
1998- $106,950 BILLION (EXCESS SS PAYMENTS)
1999- 133,673
2000- 153,312
2001- 163,088
2002- 165,432
2003- 152,799
2004- 156,075
2005- 171,821
2006- 189,452

$600 BILLION IN 34 YEARS HUH BUBS? LOL



YOUR APOLOGY IS COMING I ASSUME BUBBA?


Trust Fund Data

Until you can read charts you might want to tone down the caps and bold.

You are quoting total revenue (which includes public subsidies by the way). Excess cash = payroll taxes collected - expenses. As I told you the rest is interest. Learn to read.

Got it, you're an ignorant liar too. Weird. You a COnservative Bubba? lol






LET'S LOOK AT 1998 BUBBA

Asset Reserves at end of year

LET'S LOOK AT 1998 BUBBA
$762,460 BILLION

NOW 1999

896,133 THAT MEANT $133,673 BILLION MORE CAME IN THAN WENT OUT, INTEREST HUH lol



NOW ABOUT THE $600 BILLION SINCE 1980 BUBS? LOL


RIGHT WING LIAR WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN "EXPERT" ON SS? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

"I also reached out to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) who sits on the same subcommittee, however, his office didn’t respond in time for publication. I did, however, receive a comment from an unnamed Senate aide who said,

“The Social Security Trust Fund represents a bonds-backed promise to finance a certain level of Social Security spending. However, it does not provide economic assets to fulfill that promise. While the trust fund represents an asset to the Social Security program, it represents an equal liability to the Treasury which must come from new taxes, spending cuts, or additional borrowing.”

Is The Social Security Trust Fund Solvent?

D'oh!

I would consider the possibility that the 19 year-old aide to Senator Portman probably isn't a reliable source for information.

Yet the 19 y/o was correct and telling the truth, UNLIKE YOU BUBBA!

 

[Campbell]

Says a Klown who "thinks" there was only $1 trillion in excess payments, lol

It is me. The Klown is the Social Security Administration which says that between 1980 and 2014, the excess cash created by SS is .... about 600 billion. The rest is interest on the excess cash. Here is the source : Trust Fund Data

BZZ Sorry Klown boy, your own link says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

NOTE HOW THE "TRUST FUND" WENT FROM $760 BILLION IN 1998 TO $2,8 TRILLION BY 2014? SURGE OF INTEREST PAYMENTS HUH? LOL
Net increase during year
1998- $106,950 BILLION (EXCESS SS PAYMENTS)
1999- 133,673
2000- 153,312
2001- 163,088
2002- 165,432
2003- 152,799
2004- 156,075
2005- 171,821
2006- 189,452

$600 BILLION IN 34 YEARS HUH BUBS? LOL



YOUR APOLOGY IS COMING I ASSUME BUBBA?


Trust Fund Data

Until you can read charts you might want to tone down the caps and bold.

You are quoting total revenue (which includes public subsidies by the way). Excess cash = payroll taxes collected - expenses. As I told you the rest is interest. Learn to read.

Got it, you're an ignorant liar too. Weird. You a COnservative Bubba? lol






LET'S LOOK AT 1998 BUBBA

Asset Reserves at end of year

LET'S LOOK AT 1998 BUBBA
$762,460 BILLION

NOW 1999

896,133 THAT MEANT $133,673 BILLION MORE CAME IN THAN WENT OUT, INTEREST HUH lol



NOW ABOUT THE $600 BILLION SINCE 1980 BUBS? LOL


RIGHT WING LIAR WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN "EXPERT" ON SS? LOL

The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton had a $400 billion surplus. It was used to buy back debt. They bought back old debt which was paying a higher rate of interest and issued new debt at a savings in interest. Read the congressional record for the 106th congress. That pretty well clarifies the entire situation:

Didn't make a hill of beans difference. The first thing George W. Bush did was cut taxes on the rich twice and then started two wars, one totally unnecessary...then doubled the debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. It's a matter of record. All you have to do is read it:


FY1998 (106th Congress)

The Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and
Budget have both forecast sizeable budget surpluses over the next 15
years. Fiscal year 1998 surpluses already have reduced the Government's borrowing needs, causing Treasury to adjust its debt management policies. Last year, Treasury suspended auctions of 3-year notes and reduced the frequency of 5-year note sales.

As large surpluses continue to reduce the Government's borrowing needs, Treasury must consider how its policies will affect taxpayer costs and capital market efficiency.

Consequently, Treasury is exploring new debt management polices. On August 4, 1999, Treasury announced regulations (31 CFR Part 375) to allow Treasury to buy back outstanding debt before it matures. In essence, Treasury would buy back old debt and re-issue new debt in its place. Our goal will be to reduce significantly the national debt at the least cost to the taxpayer.''

 

[Wyatt earp]

The OP should be proud of his party, but instead he is trying to revise history.

Reagan launched the most aggressive tax cuts for the wealthy in American history - and he needed to offset it by raising revenue in other places.

So he and uncle Milty hatched a highly regressive Social Security tax that would fall exclusively on wages (as opposed to say capital gains or anything that would more directly affect the wealthy).

Reagan put the proceeds from this tax in a trust, and he promised to save it for SS payouts. But then - funny thing - his team "borrowed" the money to fund expensive programs, mostly in defense. It was brilliant. It was pure trickery designed to make-up for revenue shortfalls.

But it gets worse. Team Reagan began to borrow from projected future earnings of the fund.

Indeed, to pay for his government spending, ol' Reagan actually borrowed money that wasn't fucking there. Each time he needed to make his exploding budget look better he would have his lawyers put a another IOU in the SS trust fund, virtually bankrupting it and making it look like it was a problem with Social Security.

Fast forward to today where we have Republican think tanks trying to convince Americans that the trust fund's insolvency reflects problems with security as opposed to just saying the truth:

"We don't have the tax money that you contributed to SS. We fucking stole it so we could give subsidies to oil monopolies and bail out our banker buddies. Oh, and guess what? We also diverted some of the money to think tanks and popular media so that they could create bogus talking points and articles exonerating us."

The OP should turn off talk radio.

(God Help Us. He votes)

So he should now get his "News" from the mourning zoo in WKRP out of Cincinnati like you do?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Fast forward to today where we have Republican think tanks trying to convince Americans that the trust fund's insolvency reflects problems with security as opposed to just saying the truth:

"We don't have the tax money that you contributed to SS. We fucking stole it so we could give subsidies to oil monopolies and bail out our banker buddies. Oh, and guess what? We also diverted some of the money to think tanks and popular media so that they could create bogus talking points and articles exonerating us."

The OP should turn off talk radio.

(God Help Us. He votes)

The commenter should stay on prescribed meds.

You are confusing talk radio and the Social Security Administration - of course it is possible that they are part of the conspiracy.