America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 years ago by tailgater. 34 replies replies.
Social Security facts
hoagie55 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 03-01-2003
Posts: 909
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled
House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?

A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

And the worst part about it is, people believe it!


SOCIAL SECURITY:

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congress men &women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds-our tax dollars at work!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security
plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.
Spiny Norman Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

a: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

FALSE

These articles should help to clear up the misconceptions.

From the Cato Institute http://www.socialsecurity.org/ SSP Report No. 24 p. 6

"All of those proposals reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the
nature of the trust fund. Social Security payroll taxes are currently
bringing in more revenue than the program pays out in benefits, a surplus
that is projected to continue until approximately 2016. Thereafter, the
situation will reverse, with Social Security paying out more in benefits
than it brings in through taxes. The surplus is used to purchase special
issue Treasury bonds. The Social Security surplus used to purchase the
bonds becomes general revenue and is spent on the governments annual
general operating expenses. What remains behind in the trust fund is the
bonds, plus an interest payment attributed to the bonds (also paid in
bonds, rather than cash). Government bonds are, in essence, a form of IOU.
They are a promise against future tax revenue. When the bonds become due, the government will have to repay them out of general revenue."

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jul/socsec.htm

"The Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction.

The Social Security tax has been raising more money than is needed to pay
for current benefits, in order to build up a surplus to help finance the
retirement of the Baby Boom generation. All of this surplus is lent to the
U.S. Treasury when the Social Security Trust Fund buys bonds from it. The
money is then used to finance the federal deficit, just like any other
money the government borrows. The bonds held by the fund pay the same
interest as bonds held by the public. These bonds are every bit as real
(or as much of a fiction) as the bonds held by banks, corporations, and
individuals. Throughout U.S. history the federal government has always
paid its debts. As a result, government bonds enjoy the highest credit
ratings and are considered one of the safest assets in the world. Thus the
fund has very real and secure assets."

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2002/news/0405_news_1.html

"Trust Funds: A Healthy Picture

Although "trust fund" is the term generally used, there are actually four
trust funds - two for Social Security and two for Medicare. At the last
accounting, they held assets totaling almost $1.3 trillion. The
Congressional Budget Office projects they will grow by $2.5 trillion over
the next decade. Their holdings consist of U.S. securities currently
earning 6.9 percent."

These are the 4 Funds: It is in Public Law No: 104-121.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:1:./temp/~c1040uihHp:e30331:
H.R.3136

Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or
Passed by Both House and Senate)

SEC. 107. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

`PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS

`SEC. 1145. (a) IN GENERAL- No officer or employee of the
United States shall--

`(1) delay the deposit of any amount into (or delay the credit of any amount to) any Federal fund or otherwise vary from
the normal terms, procedures, or timing for making such deposits or
credits,

`(2) refrain from the investment in public debt
obligations of amounts in any Federal fund, or

`(3) redeem prior to maturity amounts in any
Federal fund which are invested in public debt obligations for any purpose
other than the payment of benefits or administrative expenses from such
Federal fund.

`(b) PUBLIC DEBT OBLIGATION- For purposes of this section,
the term `public debt obligation' means any obligation subject to the
public debt limit established under section 3101 of title 31, United
States Code.

`(c) FEDERAL FUND- For purposes of this section, the term
`Federal fund' means--

`(1) the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund;

`(2) the Federal Disability Insurance Trust
Fund;

`(3) the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
and

`(4) the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund.'.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by this section shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Lyndon Johnson had a profound affect on the benefits received. He pushed and signed the legislation for Medicare benefits. He went to Independence Missouri, Harry Truman's home town, to sign it. LBJ signed Harry's card as the first recipient. These are some of his words: www.ssa.guv/history/lbjstmts.html

Remarks With President Truman at the Signing in Independence of the
Medicare Bill--July 30, 1965

"PRESIDENT TRUMAN. Thank you very much. I am glad you like the President.
I like him too. He is one of the finest men I ever ran across.

Mr. President, Mrs. Johnson, distinguished guests:

You have done me a great honor in coming here today, and you have made me a very, very happy man.

This is an important hour for the Nation, for those of our citizens who
have completed their tour of duty and have moved to the sidelines. These
are the days that we are trying to celebrate for them. These people are
our prideful responsibility and they are entitled, among other benefits,
to the best medical protection available.

Not one of these, our citizens, should ever be abandoned to the indignity
of charity. Charity is indignity when you have to have it. But we don't
want these people to have anything to do with charity and we don't want
them to have any idea of hopeless despair.

Mr. President, I am glad to have lived this long and to witness today the
signing of the Medicare bill which puts this Nation right where it needs
to be, to be right. Your inspired leadership and a responsive
forward-looking Congress have made it historically possible for this day
to come about.

Thank all of you most highly for coming here. It is an honor I haven't had
for, well, quite awhile, I'll say that to you, but here it is:"

THE PRESIDENT. "The people of the United States love and voted for Harry
Truman, not because he gave them hell--but because he gave them hope.

I believe today that all America shares my joy that he is present now when
the hope that he offered becomes a reality for millions of our fellow
citizens.

I am so proud that this has come to pass in the Johnson Administration.
But it was really Harry Truman of Missouri who planted the seeds of
compassion and duty which have today flowered into care for the sick, and serenity for the fearful.

Many men can make many proposals. Many men can draft many laws. But few have the piercing and humane eye which can see beyond the words to the people that they touch. Few can see past the speeches and the political battles to the doctor over there that is tending the infirm, and to the
hospital that is receiving those in anguish, or feel in their heart
painful wrath it the injustice which denies the miracle of healing to the
old and to the poor. And fewer still have the courage to stake reputation,
and position, and the effort of a lifetime upon such a cause when there
are so few that share it.

But it is just such men who illuminate the life and the history of a
nation. And so, President Harry Truman, it is in tribute not to you, but
to the America that you represent, that we have come here to pay our love
and our respects to you today. For a country can be known by the quality
of the men it honors. By praising you, and by carrying forward your
dreams, we really reaffirm the greatness of America.

It was a generation ago that Harry Truman said, and I quote him: "Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve
and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security
against the economic effects of sickness. And the time has now arrived for
action to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that
protection."

Well, today, Mr. President, and my fellow Americans, we are taking such
action--20 years later. And we are doing that under the great leadership
of men like John McCormack, our Speaker; Carl Albert, our majority leader;
our very able and beloved majority leader of the Senate, Mike Mansfield;
and distinguished Members of the Ways and Means and Finance committees of the House and Senate--of both parties, Democratic and Republican. Because the need for this action is plain; and it is so clear indeed that we marvel not simply at the passage of this bill, but what we marvel at is that it took so many years to pass it. And I am so glad that Aime For and is here to see it finally passed and signed--one of the first authors.

There are more than 18 million Americans over the age of 65. Most of them
have low incomes. Most of them are threatened by illness and medical
expenses that they cannot afford.

And through this new law, Mr. President, every citizen will be able, in
his productive years when he is earning, to insure himself against the
ravages of illness in his old age.

This insurance will help pay for care in hospitals, in skilled nursing
homes, or in the home. And under a separate plan it will help meet the
fees of the doctors."

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

FALSE

Actually, it was Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who signed a bill taxing Social Security benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
"The 1983 Amendments In the early 1980s the Social Security program faced a serious short-term financing crisis. President Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as the Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make recommendations for legislative changes. The final bill, signed into law in 1983, made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits, the first coverage of Federal employees under Social Security and an increase in the retirement age in the next century."

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

TRUE

Since the statement does not mention any specific bill that Al Gore cast
the deciding vote, it led to an exhaustive search. As a Vice President,
he could have exercised his constitutional powers to break a tie vote in
the Senate.

I did find as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the
VP did cast a vote in the Senate to break a tie. This Act was a huge bill
that covered everything from agricultural commodities, licensing of radio
spectrum, luxury automobile taxes, fuels, banking, medicare, etc., etc.
The bill passed in the House by a vote of 218-216 and in the Senate by
51-50. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR02264:|TOM:/bss/d103query.html|

H.R. 2264 Latest Major Action: 8/10/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-66. This is section 13215: SEC. 13215. SOCIAL SECURITY AND TIER 1 RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS. (a) ADDITIONAL INCLUSION FOR CERTAIN TAXPAYERS- (1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) of section 86 (relating to social security and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(2) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT- In the case of a taxpayer with respect to whom the amount determined under subsection (b)(1)(A) exceeds the adjusted base amount, the amount included in gross income under this section shall be equal to the lesser of--
`(A) the sum of-- `(i) 85 percent of
such excess, plus
`(ii) the lesser of the amount determined under paragraph (1) or an amount equal to one-half of the difference between the adjusted base amount and the base amount of the taxpayer, or
`(B) 85 percent of the social
security benefits received during the taxable year.'

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Subsection (a) of
section 86 is amended--

(A) by striking `Gross' and
inserting:

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in
paragraph (2), gross', and

(B) by redesignating paragraphs
(1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.

(b) ADJUSTED BASE AMOUNT- Section 86(c) (defining base
amount) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) BASE AMOUNT AND ADJUSTED BASE AMOUNT- For purposes of
this section--

`(1) BASE AMOUNT- The term `base amount' means
`(A) except as otherwise provided
in this paragraph, $25,000,

`(B) $32,000 in the case of a
joint return, and

`(C) zero in the case of a
taxpayer who--

`(i) is married as
of the close of the taxable year (within the meaning of section 7703) but
does not file a joint return for such year, and

`(ii) does not live
apart from his spouse at all times during the taxable year.

`(2) ADJUSTED BASE AMOUNT- The term `adjusted
base amount' means--

`(A) except as otherwise provided
in this paragraph, $34,000,

`(B) $44,000 in the case of a
joint return, and

`(C) zero in the case of a
taxpayer described in paragraph (1)(C).'

(c) TRANSFERS TO THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND-

(1) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (1) of section 121(e)
of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Public Law 92-21) is amended by--
(A) striking `There' and
inserting:

`(A) There';

(B) inserting `(i)' immediately
following `amounts equivalent to'; and

(C) striking the period and
inserting the following: `, less (ii) the amounts equivalent to the
aggregate increase in tax liabilities under chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 which is attributable to the amendments to section 86 of such Code made by section 13215 of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

`(B) There are hereby appropriated to the hospital insurance trust fund amounts equal to the increase in tax liabilities described in subparagraph (A)(ii). Such appropriated amounts shall be transferred from the general fund of the Treasury on the basis of estimates of such tax liabilities made by the Secretary of the Treasury.Transfers shall be made pursuant to a schedule made by the Secretary of the Treasury that takes into account estimated timing of collection of such liabilities.'

(2) DEFINITION- Paragraph (3) of section 121(e)
of such Act is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as suparagraph (C), and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:
`(B) HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST
FUND- The term `hospital insurance trust fund' means the fund established
pursuant to section 1817 of the Social Security Act.'.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (2) of
section 121(e) of such Act is amended in the first sentence by striking
`paragraph (1)' and inserting `paragraph (1)(A)'.

(4) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS- Paragraph (1)(A) of
section 121(e) of such Act, as redesignated and amended by paragraph (1), is amended by striking `1954' and inserting `1986'.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.

Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants?

A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI
Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they
never paid a dime into it.

FALSE

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf
1972
Public Law 92-603, enacted October 30

"Other Eligibility Provisions Citizenship and Residence

The individual must reside within one of the 50 states or the District of
Columbia and be a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence or permanently residing in the United States under color of law.
Persons living outside the United States for an entire calendar month lose
their eligibility for such a month."
The SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and the automatic annual COLA (Cost of Living Adjustments) based on the Consumer Price Index were pushed, signed, and implemented during the Nixon administration. So immigrants first received SSI under the Republican administration of President Richard M. Nixon. (Republican) It was actually Bill Clinton that signed legislation barring immigrants from receiving SSI as part of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This changed the following year with the signing of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

"SSI In the 1970s, SSA became responsible for a new program, Supplemental Security Income (SSI). In the original 1935 Social Security Act, programs were introduced for needy aged and blind individuals and, in 1950, needy disabled individuals were added. These three programs were known as the "adult categories" and were administered by State and local governments with partial Federal funding. Over the years, the State programs became more complex and inconsistent, with as many as 1,350 administrative agencies involved and payments varying more than 300% from State to State.

In 1969, President Nixon identified a need to reform these and related
welfare programs to "bring reason, order, and purpose into a tangle of
overlapping programs." In 1971, Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare, Elliot Richardson, proposed that SSA assume responsibility for
the "adult categories." In the Social Security Amendments of 1972,
Congress federalized the "adult categories" by creating the SSI program
and assigned responsibility for it to SSA.

SSA was chosen to administer the new program because of its reputation for successful administration of the existing social insurance programs. SSA's nationwide network of field offices and large-scale data processing and record-keeping operations also made it the logical choice to perform the major task of converting over 3 million people from State welfare programs to SSI."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

"The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996.

This "welfare reform" legislation, signed by the President on 8/22/96,
ended the categorical entitlement to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent
Children) that was part of the original 1935 Social Security Act by
implementing time-limited benefits along with a work requirement. The law
also terminated SSI eligibility for most non-citizens. Previously,
lawfully admitted aliens could receive SSI if they met the other factors
of entitlement. As of the date of enactment, no new non-citizens could be
added to the benefit rolls and all existing non-citizen beneficiaries would eventually be removed from the rolls (unless they met one of the exceptions in the law.) Also effective upon enactment were provisions eliminating the "comparable severity standard" and reference to "maladaptive behavior" in the determination of disability for children to receive SSI. Also, children currently receiving benefits under the old standards were to be reviewed and removed from the rolls if they could not qualify under the new standards.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997
This bill passed the House on 7/30/97 by a vote of 346 to 85, and passed the Senate the next day on a vote of 85 to 15. This law restored SSI eligibility to certain cohorts of non- citizens whose eligibility otherwise would be terminated under the "welfare reform" of 1996. It also extended for up to one year the period for redetermining the eligibility of certain aliens who may ultimately not be eligible for continued benefits."

These are the present requirements for SSI eligibility:
http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/p96006.htm
"96.006 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:

Applicant Eligibility: The eligibility of an individual who has attained
age 65 or who is blind or disabled is determined on the basis of an
assessment of the individual's monthly income and resources, citizenship
or alien status, U.S. residency, and certain other eligibility
requirements. In determining a month's income, the first $20 of Social
Security or other unearned income is not counted. An additional $65 of
earned income ($85 if the person had no unearned income) received in a
month plus one-half of the remainder above $65 (or $85) also is not
counted. If, after these (and other) exclusions, an individual's countable
income, effective January 2002, is less than $545 per month ($817 for a
couple, both of whom are aged, blind or disabled) and countable resources are less than $2,000 ($3,000 for a couple), the individual may be eligible for payments. The values of household goods, personal effects, an automobile, life insurance, and property needed for self support
Grizzled.Old.Board.Purest Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 05-05-2003
Posts: 99
Spiney, you got a big post, do you have a succinct answer?

“Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

a: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

FALSE”

Then who did it? I saw pages and pages of info, too much to sift through to look for the answer. Do you have a concise answer? Thanks.
cwilhelmi Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
If you read his answer instead of complaining about the length then you'll see, unlike everyone else here, including me, he backed his argument with facts...

Spiny - You should have concluded with, "So put that in your pipe and smoke it!!"

Grizzled.Old.Board.Purest Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 05-05-2003
Posts: 99
Ah, Chris? I wasn't complaining? No harshness? No bad tone? In fact, I was very polite, I just saw a fairly concise question, and a very large C&P response. If there's no concise answer, that’s ok. I was just curious, one eye on a .ppt I’m writing, one on the board. How was that?
Spiny Norman Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

a: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

FALSE

http://www.socialsecurity.org/ SSP Report No. 24 p. 6


Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

FALSE

Actually, it was Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who signed a bill taxing Social Security benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

TRUE

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR02264:|TOM:/bss/d103query.html|

Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants?

A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI
Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they
never paid a dime into it.

FALSE

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf


Bout as concise as I can get it. It's a complicated subject to condense there Robby, er um..... Grizzled.
Grizzled.Old.Board.Purest Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 05-05-2003
Posts: 99
Thanks Spiney! Those, I mean us damn Republicans! That's it, I'm backing up to my butt kicking machine right now. You know, it has a bike wheel with shoes on it? and you grab the peddles and turn them with your hands? Oh Ouch Oh Ouch.
Spiny Norman Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
LOL!

(Damn funny no matter what name your using!)
cwilhelmi Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
I didn't say you were being mean, you're being a jem as of late... :-)

That is a damn long c&p, but quite informative if you have an hour or so... LOL!!
Spiny Norman Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
I agree, He is being a gem and it is a long C&P.


I will try to whittle the post down in the future.
cwilhelmi Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
why?? It's just about right for when you bring your laptop into the bathroom to "do some work"... ;-)
Spiny Norman Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899



(Remind me to never borrow your laptop.)
cwilhelmi Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
Gotta love these new fangled wireless networks!! ;-)
Homebrew Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
I am so happy someone decided on some citations for their arguments. Thanks Spiney. We may disagree alot, but when you back up your arguments with credible sources, it is hard to argue with it. I am so glad to see an arguement not citing Rush Limbaugh for a change.
Thanks Again
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
SteveS Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
The FACT of the matter is, as it's set up, the SS program is something only the government could get away with running ... a private firm selling the same program to voluntary participants would not only be brought up on charges, but would land in prison on fraud charges ...

There IS NO trust fund ... there never has been ... had there been one, and had reserves been held (as would be required of an insurance company), the SS program would not only be generating enough money to be strong and healthy, but would be yeilding a profit to the government ...

Instead, the money has been badly mismanaged, not by just one of the parties, but by BOTH and the system is in serious jeopardy ... make no mistake, it WILL collapse like a house of cards ... Ponzi schemes always do ... and because they always do, they are illegal ...

I have no idea what can or will be done ... GWB has proposed the consideration of a certain degree of privatization and you'd think by the reaction he got, that he'd taken crayons to the portrait of the Mona Lisa ... but whether his ideas get some consideration or not, whether some action is taken in his administration or in that of one of his successors of whichever party, SOMEthing will have to be done within the next generation, either to save the system or pick up it's pieces ...
Homebrew Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Social Security is broken, but I don't trust GWB, or anyone else in the government to fix it. If they put Allen Greenspan on the job, I believe it could be fixed. Gotta love Greenspan, he has the balls to tell the president that his economic plan won't work. With this economy, I think I would vote for him, if he ran for pres.
Just my .02
Dave
Robby Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Oddly enough... I agree with SteveS.
cwilhelmi Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
I thought that dirt bag Robby was gone!! Or is Grizzeld now gone??? ;-)
Grizzled.Old.Board.Purest Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 05-05-2003
Posts: 99
That guy was a douche bag.
cwilhelmi Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
No $hit, and he smelled funny!!
Spiny Norman Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899




I'm waiting for Robby to insult Grizzled.
tailgater Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185

Spiney, no offense, but those sources are a joke.
The Cato Institute and the atlantic.com have been sipping too much wine.
It's true that the bonds are an "IOU" of sorts, but since when can somebody (or something) Owe money to itself??
It's impossible.
The ONLY way to pay those bonds when they become due will be to increase the revenue stream.
The governments revenue stream is simple: TAXES.
So, while the actual "facts" that those two inept sources lay down are based on truths, they are in fact misleading and unrealistic.
In other words: LIES.
Spiny Norman Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899

It is true that the interest the government pays on these bonds is a drain on the Treasury, as will be the money paid by the government when the fund ultimately cashes in its bonds. But this drain has nothing to do with Social Security. If the Social Security Trust Fund were not currently building up a surplus, and lending the money to the government, the government would still be running a deficit of approximately $60 billion in its non-Social Security operations. It would then have to borrow this money from individuals like H. Ross Perot and Peter G. Peterson and to pay out more interest each year to the people it borrowed from. Therefore, the government's debt to the fund is simply a debt it would have incurred in any event. The government's other spending and tax policies, not Social
Security, will be the cause if there is any problem in the future in paying off the bonds held by the fund.
SteveS Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
don't be mis-led by the term "Social Security Trust Fund" ...

No money is now,or has ever been, held "in trust" in the conventional sense of the term. It is a highly misleading name that has been given to the general SS fund in order to camoflauge the fact that absolutely NOTHING is being held in actual trust ....nor are there any reserves ... tomorrow's pay-outs are strictly dependent on tomorrow's pay-ins and since the outs will exceed the ins within a generation unless it is fixed, the whole house of cards is gonna collapse ... period ... end of story ...

Don't trust Bush? ... well, I trust him at least a billion times more than I trusted Slick Willie and his would-be successor Al Bore combined ... those boys showed a serious knack for bamboozling the public
tailgater Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Spiney, You are correct.
Why then debunk the original post with Cato Institute "facts" that you don't agree with?

Either way, the problem will be very real when the boomers retire. Had the trust been filled with real money instead of bogus IOU's, then we'd be able to handle it.
Instead, something will explode.
As for Uncle Sam's general spending causing the deficit, that is true. But had the government funded all the existing programs with tax increases rather than stealing from the ss fund, the American public would be outraged.
Now, they claim the only way to cut spending is to hurt necessary programs like education.

Instead, we need to eliminate all but the very necessary social welfare programs. A little pain now will do a whole lot of good in the future.
JonR Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
Yo : How about this for a fast financial fix, lets just keep Iraq. JonR
Spiny Norman Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
Tailgater,

You are absoutely right. The reason we are in this fix is because our politicians (both sides of the aisle) have been playing fast and loose with the money and were too spineless to face up to the reality of the situation. I'm sure most of the plans that Bush's panel comes up with will intail some sort of belt tightening. I only hope that it will be implimented fairly. IE; Corporate welfare as well as social welfare cuts. I doubt that it will happen that way due to the lobbying efforts of those industries.
By the way, here is the SSA's take on it.

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.ht
Grizzled.Old.Board.Purest Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 05-05-2003
Posts: 99
I have an idea? Why don't we cut some Federal programs? What exactly does "The Department Of Education do?" If we didn't have one, would we not be educated? What about all those studies? All the pork? how does a fly land on the ceiling for how many million? a few million here, a few million there, before you know it, you're talking about real money...

There's a federal organization for "civil rights", there's a New York state org for "civil rights", there's a NY city org for "civil rights". Are all of these really necessary?? Our former govener Bill Campbel actually said, he would not endorce a single improvement in process, procedure, organizational structure, etc... if it cost "1 single government union job"... With an attitude like this, how can things ever improve? How do you ever improve efficiency? How do you ever phase things out that aren't needed? P.S., he was a democrat...
Spiny Norman Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
Lets Kill this program as well.......

The Export-Import Bank: Corporate Welfare At Its Worst

by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

This country has a $6 trillion national debt, a growing deficit and is borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to fund government services. We can no longer afford to provide over $125 billion every year in corporate welfare - tax breaks, subsidies and other wasteful spending - that goes to some of the largest, most profitable corporations in America.
One of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare can be found at a little known federal agency called the Export-Import Bank, an institution that has a budget of about $1 billion a year and the capability of putting at risk some $15.5 billion in loan guarantees annually. At a time when the government is under-funding veterans' needs, education, health care, housing and many other vital services, over 80% of the subsidies distributed by the Export-Import Bank goes to Fortune 500 corporations. Among the companies that receive taxpayer support from the Ex-Im are Enron, Boeing, Halliburton, Mobil Oil, IBM, General Electric, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, FedEx, General Motors, Raytheon, and United Technologies.

You name the large multinational corporation, many of which make substantial campaign contributions to both political parties, and they're on the Ex-Im welfare line. Needless to say, many of these same companies receiving taxpayer support pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs. IBM, for example, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner over $260 million in stock options while they were lining up for their Ex-Im handouts.

The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they can find cheap labor. What a deal! For example, General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result?
From 1975-1995 GE reduced its workforce from 667,000 to 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. In fact, while taking the Ex-Im Bank subsidies, GE was extremely public about it's "globalization" plans to lay off American workers and move jobs to Third World countries. Jack Welch, the longtime CEO of GE stated, "Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge."

General Motors has received over $500 million in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. The result? GM has shrunk its U.S. workforce from 559,000 to 314,000. Motorola has received almost $500 million in direct loans and loan subsidies from the Ex-Im Bank. The result? A mere 56 percent of its workforce is now located in the United States.

In fact, according to Time Magazine, the top five recipients of Ex-Im subsidies over the past decade have reduced their workforce by 38% - more than a third of a million jobs down the drain. These same five companies have received more than 60 percent of all Export-Import Bank subsidies.
Boeing, the leading Ex-Im recipient, has reduced its workforce by more than 100,000 employees over the past ten years.
Here are a few examples of your Ex-Im taxpayer dollars at work:

The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of illegally dumping steel into the U.S. - exacerbating the crisis in our steel industry.

Since 1994, the Export-Import Bank has provided $673 million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron Corporation, leaving taxpayers exposed to $514 million. The Ex-Im Bank approved a $300 million loan for an Enron-related project in India even though the World Bank repeatedly refused to finance this project because it was "not economically viable."

The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales to the Chinese military. According to the President of Machinists' Local 751: "Boeing used to make tail sections for the 737 in Wichita, but they moved the work to a military factory in Xian, China. Is this Boeing's definition of free trade, to have American workers compete with Chinese labor making $50 a month under military discipline?"

The Ex-Im Bank insured a $3-million loan to aid General Electric build a factory where Mexican workers will make parts for appliances to export back to the United States. This project is responsible for the loss of 1,500 American jobs in Bloomington, Indiana.

And on and on it goes. The bottom line is that if the Export-Import Bank cannot be reformed so as to become a vehicle for real job creation in the United States, it should be eliminated. American citizens have better things to do with their money than support an agency that provides welfare for corporations that could care less about American workers.

(Sorry bout the length.)
-Spiny
Grizzled.Old.Board.Purest Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 05-05-2003
Posts: 99
Spiney, I have enjoyed reading your posts, but do you truely believe that corporations pay taxes? Any taxes? Do you believe if there was "reform" that they would "pay" taxes? Or do you believe they would increase the cost of their goods and services and pass the cost along to their customers (ahem, that would be you and me).
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
lucky for me i didn't read these posts, i just spend the money as fast as it come in. i think i may be the only one posting who is actually drawing social security and have for 8 years.

i do remember when soc sec was capped at $25,00 earnings and i believe 3 or 4 percent of earnings. migh have been lower. one year they would raise the base and the next year the percent.

it is a tough go for a lot of people. until you are 75 or maybe 80, you get one dollar less for each 2 you earn or vic versa. so what to do. work off the books.

next time you see some old guy like me working for minimum wages trying to exist, remember he is losing part of that income by the loss of soc sec income. in addition you not only pay tax on the income, you also pay soc sec tax also and it does not have any affect on your soc sec, it doesn't go up.

self employed soc sec tax is close to 15%. before you eat, before you smoke the govt has taken 15% + income tax. then the cigars in calif are taxed at 30% or more.

tis a puzzlement.


my numbers and %'s are not accurate, only close, so no corrections are necessary.

show me the money, your ass, hide the money.
tailgater Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Spiney,
I looked up the ex-im bank and it's not what your post states. It's a bank that lends money so companies can produce or purchase items for export.
Key word: "Lends"
There are no subsidies from banks. They lend money and receive the lended amount back, plus interest.
My search could have been more thorough, perhaps, but I see nothing that mentions the Ex-Im Bank as a Federal "Agency", and nowhere does it mention a Billion dollars in subsidies.
If it's true, I agree let's squash it.
But it seems that your cut and paste isn't accurate.
Spiny Norman Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
It is indeed a Federal program .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020614.html

It makes loans at greatly reduced rates that require subsidies by the government to keep it afloat. I'ts main use has been as a tool of American Foreign policy and a handout to corporations with powerful lobbies.
Started by FDR to increase trade with the USSR and to fill in where commercial banks had failed to provide enough lending for export.

From.....
http://assets.cambridge.org/0521811430/sample/0521811430WS.pdf

In making it's loans, the bank by statute had to avoid competing with commercial banks while still expecting a reasonable assurance of repayment. It was not supposed to be a concessional lender or an aid giving institution.

Don't know about you, but I would love to see the phrase "Reasonable assurance of repayment" in the contract for my next loan. Especially one with interest rates far below the market average.

Spiny Norman Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
"""Spiney, I have enjoyed reading your posts, but do you truely believe that corporations pay taxes? Any taxes?"""

They pay very little if any at all and none pay anywhere the 40% rate you see on paper.

"" Do you believe if there was "reform" that they would "pay" taxes?"""

Not until we have REAL campaign finance reform. As long as they can buy the politicians, they will find a way to avoid paying their fair share.

"" Or do you believe they would increase the cost of their goods and services and pass the cost along to their customers (ahem, that would be you and me)."""

I'm either going to be paying more in taxes to make up for the shortfall (present system) or an increase in cost for the products. I prefer the latter because
(A), It's not a hidden cost.
(B) I will have the choice of buying the product or not.
(C) Because companies will still have to compete for my business, I will be paying for the true cost of the product. Isn't that a cornerstone of the free market system? Compatition among companies providing the best goods and services based on the cost to provide them?
tailgater Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Corporations pay no taxes?
Then why do so many flee from state to state, or even out of the country?
It's not just cheaper wages that keeps a company in a particular area.
I live in massachusetts, where just about every large manufacturing company has fled. NOT due solely (or even primarily) from the higher average wage. They leave because of the severe taxes the state demands.

And many more companies leave the US because of the Federal taxes due to uncle sam.
Cheap labor is only one of the reasons.

So don't kid yourself into believing that corporations don't pay taxes.
It's like the uninformed who think everything is a "write off". Just exactly what do they think that means? Where is it being writen off from, and who eventually pays?
They don't know, but it's a great catch phrase.
Users browsing this topic
Guest