Who Stole Social Security

[g5000]

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.

Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Gawd, seriously? FDR that wanted SS to be stronger, yet was weakened by future legislation Bubs? PROVE ME WRONG DUMBASS, GET OFF OPINIONS !


Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: When did Social Security start?

A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)


OOPS BUBBA

Social Security History

 

[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.

Yep, about the same amount of Carters final F/Y deficit correct? The reason Ronnie ONLY TRIPLED THE DEBT RIGHT? Oops

Nope, Ronnie increase SS taxes to "fix" SS was just meant to, not in his term, but the next 20+ years, hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich. Weird right Bubba?

The tax cuts on the rich by Bush I and Clinton right?

What tax cut are you talking about anyway. Reagan's 1981 tax deal was broken. He raised taxes 11 times. The 1986 tax deal was revenue neutral with a dime from SS.

 

[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

Consider the source.

I generally use only SSA information. The SSA says that it is an urban myth : Social Security History. Of course it is possible that the SSA is part of a vast conspiracy. As I said in the article, about as likely that the second shooter on the grassy knoll being an alien who escaped from Roswell, NM.

Nice to know your source is right and my source is wrong.

As for that second shooter?? To many people saw another shooter that day. All of them weren't crazy even though you think they were.

Way more to the Kennedy assassination then we will ever know.

Who do you trust? OnTheIssues or the SSA.

However you want to look at it, LBJ was the culprit.

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.

He was the one who made the money in SS available to Congress.

 

[Dad2three]

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....

AND WE WOULDN'T "OWE" $3 TRILLION TODAY!

 

[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.

Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap

No sure what you mean by virtually. And I think you mean financing gap not funding gap which is nearly triple the financing gap.

 

[Dad2three]

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

Ignorant right wingers


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

 

[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.

Gawd, seriously? FDR that wanted SS to be stronger, yet was weakened by future legislation Bubs? PROVE ME WRONG DUMBASS, GET OFF OPINIONS !


Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: When did Social Security start?

A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)


OOPS BUBBA

Social Security History

When did Social Security start? Thanks for the trip down irrelevant alley. You are adding bolds and CAPs to make it appear that you have something to say. Here is Robert Samuelson of the WP :

Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

However you want to look at it, LBJ was the culprit.

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.

He was the one who made the money in SS available to Congress.

Oddly enough, you mean Nixon. LBJ made a recommendation that Nixon followed-up on.

You do realize that Budgets do not actually move money. They simply explain the relationship of expenses and revenue. To repeat your own quote. it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Yep, about the same amount of Carters final F/Y deficit correct? The reason Ronnie ONLY TRIPLED THE DEBT RIGHT? Oops

Nope, Ronnie increase SS taxes to "fix" SS was just meant to, not in his term, but the next 20+ years, hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich. Weird right Bubba?

The tax cuts on the rich by Bush I and Clinton right?

What tax cut are you talking about anyway. Reagan's 1981 tax deal was broken. He raised taxes 11 times. The 1986 tax deal was revenue neutral with a dime from SS.

When Clinton took the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6% Bubba?

Ronnie 1981 tax deal was broken? LIAR

True he needed to increase taxes 11 times, (mostly on the middle class/poor) to cover the top rate from 70% to 50% the first 6 years, but it DID go to the 28% that Ronnie got in 1981 right dummy?

 

[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?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

No, Honey Boo Boo. It requires you being educated

"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

 

[Dad2three]

Love them some conspiracy

It was solvent till Nam'

That is surprising. The man who ran it in 1944 said that the system was actuarially unsound starting day 1. So no it wasn't solvent until Nam. Solvent in terms of Social Security means that it can pay its bills for the next 75 years.

Basically the same system Germany used since the 1880's? Unsound huh?

 

[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!

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Oh I get it Bubba, it's a reading comprehension issue you seem to have

RONNIE "SAVED" SS BY INCREASING TAX REVENUES TO HIDE THE COST OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, TODAY NEARLY $3 TRILLION SITS IN THE TRUST FUND, FROM LESS THAN $100 BILLION UNDER RONNIE CORRECT? lol

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

 

[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

CONservative "math" I get it Bubs


Excess cash alone 1998-2004 were $800+ billion Bubba, lol



Trust Fund Data

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Gawd, seriously? FDR that wanted SS to be stronger, yet was weakened by future legislation Bubs? PROVE ME WRONG DUMBASS, GET OFF OPINIONS !


Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: When did Social Security start?

A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)


OOPS BUBBA

Social Security History

When did Social Security start? Thanks for the trip down irrelevant alley. You are adding bolds and CAPs to make it appear that you have something to say. Here is Robert Samuelson of the WP :

Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?

Yep, FDR the guy who advocated a living wage for all, wouldn't recognize SS *shaking head*

 

[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

 

[Dad2three]

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.

No, Honey Boo Boo. It requires you being educated

"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

Weird, who would've thought borrowing money needed to be paid back, like my Tbills?