Whats with the Social Security farce these days?

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
It's a well known fact that SS will not be around in its current form in 10-15 years max... Why doesn't the bush admin come out and say that we won't have it to rely on by then, because he and his cronies have drained the coffers dry by borrowing against it to fund programs since thanks to him there arent enough tax dollars to go around, and he has no intentions whatsoever of replenishing it?

If my monthly ss dollars end up supporting the neocon war-mongering agenda... :|
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Hmmm... Is there evidence to suggest we were heading in this direction under the Clinton regime?
 

Bitdog

Member
Dec 3, 2003
143
0
0
Just because polititions of all kinds have spent the SS $ as it arrives doesn't change the fact that
spending it on something other than it's original intent is fraud on a criminal scale.

I was made to sign a SS contract when I was 10 years old. That in it's self is a crime.
One can't make a financial contract with a child.
And a contract with a child, so a group can steal from him for his entire life time, is truly a crime.
The criminals are above the law. (They will decide that they've done no wrong.)
You have to petition the government for the right to sue them.

I have personally done my best for 40 years,
to keep any of my money from going to our corrupted government.
If they want to start treating me good, I will then start treating them good.

But for that change to take place, they have to be exposed to be stopped, so the corrections can take place.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,841
88
91








There is no SS fund..it's only a book entry. Pres.Lynden Johnson signed that change into law. The obligation now comes from the general fund and has unfunded obligations in excess of ten trillion dollars. Start saving your nickles..yer gona need em... Text
 

buckmasterson

Senior member
Oct 12, 2002
482
0
0
The government has been borrowing money from SS since 1983 in the Ronald Reagan years.

http

Don't blame Clinton for this.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: busmaster11
It's a well known fact that SS will not be around in its current form in 10-15 years max... Why doesn't the bush admin come out and say that we won't have it to rely on by then, because he and his cronies have drained the coffers dry by borrowing against it to fund programs since thanks to him there arent enough tax dollars to go around, and he has no intentions whatsoever of replenishing it?

If my monthly ss dollars end up supporting the neocon war-mongering agenda... :|
That can't be Bus, it's all safe in a "Lockbox" remember.

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Given the Republican sponsored looting of the treasury, it's an interesting question as to the solvency of the government itself in 15-20 years. Given the fact that SS funds are being spent just the same as any other govt revenue, the situation amounts to a surtax of 12.4% on all earned income less than $85K, the statutory cutoff point.

Here's a slightly different take on it, same numbers-

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfacts

Basically, the govt will have to develop greater income to meet the demands of the trust fund obligations after 2017, or reduce benefits accordingly.

One of the consequences of supply side economics is that a greater percentage of total income goes to taxpayers making more than $85K, income that is not subject to SS tax. As the income has shifted, the SS ceiling has not kept up, placing a greater % of total earnings outside of the SS tax base.

There are, of course, some obvious solutions- raise the cutoff point so that obligations and income balance better in the long run, or eliminate the cutoff entirely. Extend income eligibility to cover more kinds of income, not just earned income. Reduce Federal expenditures and/or increase income to allow internal surpluses to repay the trust as required.

None of this will happen with Dubya in the Whitehouse and Republicons running Congress, however. We'll see some new shell game instead, some variation of three card monty, some new bait and switch. They'll help you put your money in the stock market, so that you can enjoy the benefits of volatility and predatory management and transactional fees... while they hand boomers the stinky end of the stick... the very people who've financed the retirements of today's seniors...

 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Given the Republican sponsored looting of the treasury, it's an interesting question as to the solvency of the government itself in 15-20 years. Given the fact that SS funds are being spent just the same as any other govt revenue, the situation amounts to a surtax of 12.4% on all earned income less than $85K, the statutory cutoff point.

Here's a slightly different take on it, same numbers-

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfacts

Basically, the govt will have to develop greater income to meet the demands of the trust fund obligations after 2017, or reduce benefits accordingly.

One of the consequences of supply side economics is that a greater percentage of total income goes to taxpayers making more than $85K, income that is not subject to SS tax. As the income has shifted, the SS ceiling has not kept up, placing a greater % of total earnings outside of the SS tax base.

There are, of course, some obvious solutions- raise the cutoff point so that obligations and income balance better in the long run, or eliminate the cutoff entirely. Extend income eligibility to cover more kinds of income, not just earned income. Reduce Federal expenditures and/or increase income to allow internal surpluses to repay the trust as required.

None of this will happen with Dubya in the Whitehouse and Republicons running Congress, however. We'll see some new shell game instead, some variation of three card monty, some new bait and switch. They'll help you put your money in the stock market, so that you can enjoy the benefits of volatility and predatory management and transactional fees... while they hand boomers the stinky end of the stick... the very people who've financed the retirements of today's seniors...
Right, because the democrats stopped it when they had control of the whitehouse and congress.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
The only time that Dems held the House, Senate, and Whitehouse after 1980 was 92-94. Attempts to correct the fiscal imbalances at that time led to the republican takeover of the House in 94... folks apparently prefer the don't tax and spend Republicans to the tax and spend Democrats. As we've seen, getting into debt is easy, and popular, too- the perfect illusion. Living with the consequences down the road is another matter entirely. Not that the repubs give a damn- they reap the benefits of the taxcuts, they own the debt, and the govt by extension. We won't be able to afford to meet the obligations to the SS Trust when the time comes because we'll have other debts that must be serviced first, in order to maintain any semblance of fiscal integrity.

Think of your SS contributions as an extremely regressive tax on earned income, because that's what's happening. Repubs have no intention whatsoever of honoring the debt to the SS trust, they're doing everything in their power to loot the treasury now, force financial collapse in the near future.

If the govt were a living creature, a dairy cow, for example, then the Dems milked her pretty hard, spread that milk around, yet fed her well. The new owners, the Repubs, milk her even harder, keep the milk for themselves, don't feed the cow very well, and plan to ship her off to the dogfood factory when the milk runs dry...

Anybody who depends on that milk can just learn to like dogfood, right? For as long as it lasts, anyway...
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
you democrats are making a damn good case for privitization of SS. if the govnt cant touch it then they cant spend it, right?

and the current social security problem has nothing to do w/ bush or clinton or any one person. it has to do w/ the fact that democrats overspend on the social agenda and republicans overspend on defense and national security. if either side stopped their spending they risk alienating their voter base and losing power.

and for you librals to imply, or even outright proclaim, that democratic administrations are in any way, shape, or form, fiscally repsonsible is just assinine!

personally, i equate democratic spending like feeding birds. the more handouts you give the less capable the entitiy is of helping itself. and in plenty of instances that entity becomes 100% reliant on the handout. some birds may live their whole life flying circles around the same fast food place just waiting for somebody to give them food, just as some individuals may spend their whole life taking that mothly trip to go get their welfare check. and for national security/defense? democrats like to believe the world is just one big lovefest. less weapons, less technology, smaller army.... more safe?
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
Originally posted by: busmaster11
It's a well known fact that SS will not be around in its current form in 10-15 years max... Why doesn't the bush admin come out and say that we won't have it to rely on by then, because he and his cronies have drained the coffers dry by borrowing against it to fund programs since thanks to him there arent enough tax dollars to go around, and he has no intentions whatsoever of replenishing it?

If my monthly ss dollars end up supporting the neocon war-mongering agenda... :|
well would you rather be safe and in debt, or less in debt and in danger?

given how many dean backers there are on this board i think i know the answer.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: busmaster11
It's a well known fact that SS will not be around in its current form in 10-15 years max... Why doesn't the bush admin come out and say that we won't have it to rely on by then, because he and his cronies have drained the coffers dry by borrowing against it to fund programs since thanks to him there arent enough tax dollars to go around, and he has no intentions whatsoever of replenishing it?

If my monthly ss dollars end up supporting the neocon war-mongering agenda... :|
Actually it appears it is the dems that want to keep the status quo with SS. Bush wants to propose private accounts for ss so the goverment cant raid those funds.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: busmaster11
It's a well known fact that SS will not be around in its current form in 10-15 years max... Why doesn't the bush admin come out and say that we won't have it to rely on by then, because he and his cronies have drained the coffers dry by borrowing against it to fund programs since thanks to him there arent enough tax dollars to go around, and he has no intentions whatsoever of replenishing it?

If my monthly ss dollars end up supporting the neocon war-mongering agenda... :|
well would you rather be safe and in debt, or less in debt and in danger?

given how many dean backers there are on this board i think i know the answer.
Safe and in debt? So what happens ten years down the road when the price of oil is going up because of increasing demand and decreasing supply (by now the US will have to import half of what it needs), the boomers retire for good, the foreigners demand their money back (to pay for oil and because of the rotten shape of the US economy) and OPEC has started trading their oil in the euro because the Eurozone economy is larger and in fundamentally better shape (no outstanding debt) than the US economy?



 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
Safe and in debt? So what happens ten years down the road when the price of oil is going up because of increasing demand and decreasing supply (by now the US will have to import half of what it needs), the boomers retire for good, the foreigners demand their money back (to pay for oil and because of the rotten shape of the US economy) and OPEC has started trading their oil in the euro because the Eurozone economy is larger and in fundamentally better shape (no outstanding debt) than the US economy?
well there you [democrats] go making another conservative argument. if the price goes up because of lack of supply 'we' could start by opening up drilling in Alaska!

as for the rest of your rant, well i really dont understand. 'rotten shape of the US economy'? where do you come up w/ that? where on the planet do you feel theres a stronger economy, because you must be joking when you say europe.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: josphII
Safe and in debt? So what happens ten years down the road when the price of oil is going up because of increasing demand and decreasing supply (by now the US will have to import half of what it needs), the boomers retire for good, the foreigners demand their money back (to pay for oil and because of the rotten shape of the US economy) and OPEC has started trading their oil in the euro because the Eurozone economy is larger and in fundamentally better shape (no outstanding debt) than the US economy?
well there you [democrats] go making another conservative argument. if the price goes up because of lack of supply 'we' could start by opening up drilling in Alaska!

as for the rest of your rant, well i really dont understand. 'rotten shape of the US economy'? where do you come up w/ that? where on the planet do you feel theres a stronger economy, because you must be joking when you say europe.
I did not say stronger. The US economy is being undermined by the twin budget and trade deficits and the looming retirement of the boomers and the effect that will have on the economy. Those issues will have to be addressed some day. Who is going to do that and survive politically?

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The government has been borrowing money from SS since 1983 in the Ronald Reagan years.
Wrong. Absolutely, completely wrong.

USSC made this clear as far back as 1937

1. The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into a pool or trust fund, but:

"The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way."

[Helvering v. Davis, U.S. 619, 635 (1937)]


2. The Court points out that payroll deductions of American workers are NOT payments on premiums for insurance of any kind, but are simply income taxes:

"... eligibility for benefits ... (does) not in any true sense depend on contribution through the payment of taxes."

[Flemming v. Davis, 363 U.S. 603, 609 (1960)]


3. Furthermore, payments made by employers for each of their employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the employee, but constitute an EXCISE TAX on the employer's right to do business. Consequently, his so called "contributions" go directly into the general fund of the treasury.

4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions do NOT acquire property rights or contractual rights through their payments, as they would if they were paying on an insurance policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are no guarantees! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to citizens even though they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amount of benefits granted are at the option of Congress.

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960).

5. Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity or gesture of charity. As the Court states:

"Congress included in the original act, and has since retained a claim expressly reserving to it the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the act".

[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610-11 (1960)]

In effect, Social Security benefits are not unlike pensions to be given or withheld at the discretion of Congress.

6. Payroll deductions which a worker pays (a special kind of "employment/income tax") do nothing more than qualify him for consideration as a recipient of a charitable gift. His payments do not guarantee him anything. They do not guarantee the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or abolish the entire process at any time.

Justice Hugo L. Black, dissenting in the Nestor case, stated that the whole Social Security thesis, as expounded by the majority of the court, is that the government is giving the participating citizen "something for nothing and Congress can stop doing so when it pleases." He further stated:

"I cannot believe that any private insurance in America would be permitted to repudiate it's matured contracts with its policy-holders who have regularly paid all the premiums in reliance upon the good faith of the company."

[Flemming v. Nestor, supra]
[Justice Black dissenting]


++++++++++++

The sooner this farce called Social Security is junked, the better.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Safe? from what? from who? We spend more on the military than the next five nations combined, and it's not like either the Canadians or the Mexicans intend to invade anytime real soon...

Protect our interests? The House of Saud? they've got more danger from within than without... Iraq? what an empty shell of a threat that turned out to be... Taiwan? do a 180 policy reversal, make some kind of quixotic stand in China's backyard? Korea? Kim is a paper tiger, scared stiff of the US, and won't be attacking anybody... NMD? Can you spell Pork?

Terrar? Conventional forces are useless against terrorists, unless you intend to invade their host country- nobody will knowingly host Al Qaeda, not anymore...

"Actually it appears it is the dems that want to keep the status quo with SS. Bush wants to propose private accounts for ss so the goverment cant raid those funds. "

Not exactly- it's so their stockbroker and market speculator buddies can raid them, instead. No guarantees from the market, just that good ol' blue sky...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Safe? from what? from who? We spend more on the military than the next five nations combined, and it's not like either the Canadians or the Mexicans intend to invade anytime real soon...

Protect our interests? The House of Saud? they've got more danger from within than without... Iraq? what an empty shell of a threat that turned out to be... Taiwan? do a 180 policy reversal, make some kind of quixotic stand in China's backyard? Korea? Kim is a paper tiger, scared stiff of the US, and won't be attacking anybody... NMD? Can you spell Pork?

Terrar? Conventional forces are useless against terrorists, unless you intend to invade their host country- nobody will knowingly host Al Qaeda, not anymore...

"Actually it appears it is the dems that want to keep the status quo with SS. Bush wants to propose private accounts for ss so the goverment cant raid those funds. "

Not exactly- it's so their stockbroker and market speculator buddies can raid them, instead. No guarantees from the market, just that good ol' blue sky...
Include the crash that caused the great depression and the stock market still returns 12% of year on average.

Only let people invest in bonds, you would still get a 6% annual return.

limit it only to money markets and people would still get a 3% return.

Limit them to social security and they might get a 1% return.

And if your a black, chances are you will die before reaching retirement age.

Social security is currently broke.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
The problem isn't Social Security, it's whether or not you can trust Bush or the other new Republicans. I do not know the answer.


Jhhn-

I agree with your entire post, well put.

This part in particular sums it up colorfully and correctly..

"If the govt were a living creature, a dairy cow, for example, then the Dems milked her pretty hard, spread that milk around, yet fed her well. The new owners, the Repubs, milk her even harder, keep the milk for themselves, don't feed the cow very well, and plan to ship her off to the dogfood factory when the milk runs dry... "



 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
There are probably quite a few ways to lose a Presidential election. Suggesting we do away with social security is near the top. Whatever the knuckleheads in Washington do it's going to be a long time before more major changes are made to SS. Right now I've got to work until I"m almost 66 to get full bennies. :( :)

-Robert

 

Bitdog

Member
Dec 3, 2003
143
0
0
Social programs are socialism.
Basicly, it's communism.
AND that system failed in Russia, and simular programs in USA fail also.
Both Rep & Dem partys are to blame.
Since situation makes the person,
unless we can change the situation, (no matter who we elect),
the problem will continue.

The Ballenced bugget bill thingie, always fails to get passed.
They can't be in charge of policeing them selves, setting their own wage,
or any other activity that has a conflict of interest.

I'm holding out for that one man on top, who doesn't do the greed thing,
but does restore freedom & rights to we the people,
and restores the checks and ballences in government which is
required for our democracy to continue to exist & prosper with our global neighbors.

BUT, where is he & why hasn't he signed up yet to run as president in 2004 ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS, here's a thought: The key to a prosperous USA may be: END THE INFIGHTING.
Government policies that pit one against their neighbor,
causes an extreeme loss of time, money, & happiness.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY