PDA

View Full Version : Put A Big Minus Sign On SS


Lefty
08-06-2010, 01:09 PM
Just read that this year, SS will pay out more than they take in.
Haven't the Dims been telling us, that when Repubs kept saying SS was in trouble that they were fear mongering?
Hmmmm...

prospector
08-06-2010, 03:03 PM
does anyone know when and who started raiding the soc sec funds? there used to be a big surplus..

JustRalph
08-06-2010, 04:07 PM
does anyone know when and who started raiding the soc sec funds? there used to be a big surplus..

you're joking right?

We have been running the Government on it since the late 70's if memory serves me right..........

It has been used basically as the general fund for the Fed Government

Lefty
08-06-2010, 05:15 PM
Pretty sure it was good ol LBJ that first comingled SS with the general fund.

mostpost
08-06-2010, 07:29 PM
Pretty sure it was good ol LBJ that first comingled SS with the general fund.
Social Security has never been comingled with the General Fund. But, that is a distinction without much of a difference. What happen is the government borrows money from the Social Security surplus to pay for other programs. Social Security gets paid back when the bonds mature. The problem will come when the government over all can't pay the loans back to Social Security.

As to who was first to borrow from SS I blame Bush.
Well, why not? You guys are blaming Obama for a recession that started before he took office.

johnhannibalsmith
08-06-2010, 07:49 PM
...As to who was first to borrow from SS I blame Bush...

Now call someone a racist and you will have covered all of the bases.

Bruddah
08-06-2010, 08:20 PM
does anyone know when and who started raiding the soc sec funds? there used to be a big surplus..


In 1947 General George Marshall and Congress developed a plan to rebuild Europe, Germany, Japan and Italy with the "untouched" funds from the Social Security Trust Funds. That Trust fund was never touched, even during the entireiety of WWII.

The sell was, we could rebuild the world and receive interest from other nations on the money in the Trust Funds. Under the "Good Faith" of the American government, we rebuilt the other Nations which, with a few repayments made by Great Britain, not one country paid us back. We finally forgave the debts to all through the United Nations.

Once the lock was picked on the SS Trust funds, the U.S. government continued to spend those old funds plus all new funds sent to the "Trust Fund". To this day the U.S. government has paid on average 1% interest but not one dime of principal. The government and countries we rebuilt after the war repaid us with cheap steel prices in the 60's and 70's because they had nice new modern founderies and our steel industry couldn't compete because this country had no cash which to finance a rebuilding of our Steel Industry.

The History gets worse and has evolved to the mess you see today, but you get the jest of it. American treasures rebuild the World and America get's pissed on because we are an arrogant people. Meanwhile our elected go around the world kissing hands and asses while bowing. Don't you just love it.

Bruddah
08-06-2010, 08:25 PM
Social Security has never been comingled with the General Fund. But, that is a distinction without much of a difference. What happen is the government borrows money from the Social Security surplus to pay for other programs. Social Security gets paid back when the bonds mature. The problem will come when the government over all can't pay the loans back to Social Security.

As to who was first to borrow from SS I blame Bush.
Well, why not? You guys are blaming Obama for a recession that started before he took office.


Wrong as Wrong can be. Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Democrats were the first to comingle SS funds with the General Funds. It gave them more access and more control.

witchdoctor
08-06-2010, 09:35 PM
does anyone know when and who started raiding the soc sec funds? there used to be a big surplus..

http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/ff/faq/trust.html

jonnielu
08-06-2010, 11:11 PM
Social Security has never been comingled with the General Fund. But, that is a distinction without much of a difference. What happen is the government borrows money from the Social Security surplus to pay for other programs. Social Security gets paid back when the bonds mature. The problem will come when the government over all can't pay the loans back to Social Security.

As to who was first to borrow from SS I blame Bush.
Well, why not? You guys are blaming Obama for a recession that started before he took office.

Now why would the federal jurisdiction borrow money from a socialist security fund when it has the federal reserve to borrow every dollar from? Since 1913, money does not exist in America until Congress "borrows" it into existence from the Fed in the form of currency. There still isn't any money, and Congress can borrow all that it wants from the swindlers at the Fed.

This is why you have a national debt. Where do you think it came from? Socialist Security has been a scheme of income taxation since the beginning. You send it, they spend it, never has there been a need for a fund. When the Ponzi scheme collapses, the federal jurisdiction will just say that the ahole citizenry just never sent enough money, and Congress can close the Socialist security door any time it wants to anyway.

Think for two minutes, for God's sake. Americans have been sending half of their income to the federal jurisdiction for 50 years (round numbers), and while that has been going on they have needed to also borrow several trillion to make ends meet. From who?

The Fed is the biggest swindle in the history of mankind, Social Security is a distant second, but a swindle just the same. Who started it, the federal jurisdiction.

Here is one for you, when the federal jurisdiction pays the interest on the national debt, does it pay with the same funny money that it gives you from the bank? Or does it pay with actual money? And, who owns that actual money?

jdl

mostpost
08-07-2010, 12:17 AM
I will say it again. The Social Security Trust Fund is seperate from the General Revenue Fund. They were never comingled. The government borrows money from the SS Trust Fund surplus to finance other programs, but that money is repaid with interest. If it was all one big happy fund, the government would not have to repay the money and money from general revenues could be used to pay Social Security claims. This is not the case.

plainolebill
08-07-2010, 12:32 AM
you're joking right?

We have been running the Government on it since the late 70's if memory serves me right..........

It has been used basically as the general fund for the Fed Government

Right! I wonder how many people actually know this? All you hear is the system is in trouble, as if we've been naughty and shouldn't have accepted our SS checks.

I'm not sure when they started sticking they're fangs into the 'Trust Fund' but I'm purty sure it's off he books as far as the budget goes. If you include what the gvt owes SS the deficit is much higher. However they, the govt, has no intention of paying that money back.

mostpost
08-07-2010, 12:35 AM
Now why would the federal jurisdiction borrow money from a socialist security fund when it has the federal reserve to borrow every dollar from?
Are you saying the government doesn't borrow from Social Security? That is clearly wrong. Nobody denies that it does. No one but you.
As for the Federal Reserve, I confess to not knowing a whole lot about the system, but isn't the purpose of the Fed to act as a bank for the banks? Does not the Fed need their money to fulfill that mission?
You say the Fed could print the money and loan it to the government. But does that not create inflation? Isn't it better to borrow money that already exists?

Lefty
08-07-2010, 04:36 AM
Well, mosty, evidently it didn't get pd back. More going out this year than coming in. Not good.

jonnielu
08-07-2010, 09:24 AM
Are you saying the government doesn't borrow from Social Security? That is clearly wrong. Nobody denies that it does. No one but you.


Everybody likes the word "borrow" much more than "robbed", but, when things are "borrowed" with no means or intent to replace it, theft has taken place. Congress has no money, it produces nothing of value, it has no means to pay back anything except through taxes that are paid by people. When it "borrows", you pay back, with interest.

In 1913, Congress made a deal with a private bank called "The Federal Reserve" so that they would no longer have to go to the people for the budget in the form of tax acts that the people would have to approve of. Since that time, Congress borrows whatever it wants from the Fed, and you pay interest on the debt created from this little deal. Take a look around.




As for the Federal Reserve, I confess to not knowing a whole lot about the system, but isn't the purpose of the Fed to act as a bank for the banks? Does not the Fed need their money to fulfill that mission?
You say the Fed could print the money and loan it to the government. But does that not create inflation? Isn't it better to borrow money that already exists?

The purpose of the Fed is to fulfill the phrophecy of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Who told the people that if they ever allowed a central bank they would wake up bankrupt on the shores of the land that their forefathers conquered. Take a look around.

jdl