The Republicans have been trying to destroy Social Security since its inception. They have stolen over $2 trillion from the fund since 1980, mostly for the war machine. If that $2 trillion was payed back with the interest it would have accrued, Social Security would be solvent indefinitely.
They have? So, that would be saying that only republicans have controlled congress since 1980? Really?
More like $2.8trillion, which is the amount of US Treasury bonds the SS trust fund holds. Somehow republicans think this debt does not have to be paid back. Democrats do not think that way so it is only the republicans who are trying to steal the money.
What in the world are you talking about? I am assuming that you have some sort of proof of this? If not, than stop talking out your butt.
The truth is that there is no SS trust fund. The money collected from SS taxes is simply put in the general treasury. If that revenue had been put into a trust fund and invested, we wouldn't be in the same fix we are today. So if you want to suggest that the government has mismanaged SS tax revenues, no one would argue with it. But the Congress didn't rob anybody any more than they rob the nation with what they do every day.
Social Security is a government program supported by a dedicated tax, like highway maintenance. Now you can say that assigning a particular tax to a particular program is merely a fiction, but in fact such assignments have both legal and political force. If Ronald Reagan had said, back in the 1980s, Lets increase a regressive tax that falls mainly on the working class, while cutting taxes that fall mainly on much richer people, he would have faced a political firestorm. But because the increase in the regressive payroll tax was recommended by the Greenspan Commission to support Social Security, it was politically in a different box you might even call it a lockbox from Reagans tax cuts. The purpose of that tax increase was to maintain the dedicated tax system into the future, by having Social Securitys assigned tax take in more money than the system paid out while the baby boomers were still working, then use the trust fund built up by those surpluses to pay future bills. Viewed in its own terms, that strategy was highly successful. The date at which the trust fund will run out, according to Social Security Administration projections, has receded steadily into the future: 10 years ago it was 2029, now its 2042. As Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, and others have pointed out, the SSA estimates are very conservative, and quite moderate projections of economic growth push the exhaustion date into the indefinite future. But the privatizers wont take yes for an answer when it comes to the sustainability of Social Security. Their answer to the pretty good numbers is to say that the trust fund is meaningless, because its invested in U.S. government bonds. They arent really saying that government bonds are worthless; their point is that the whole notion of a separate budget for Social Security is a fiction. And if thats true, the idea that one part of the government can have a positive trust fund while the government as a whole is in debt does become strange. But there are two problems with their position. The lesser problem is that if you say that there is no link between the payroll tax and future Social Security benefits which is what denying the reality of the trust fund amounts to then Greenspan and company pulled a fast one back in the 1980s: they sold a regressive tax switch, raising taxes on workers while cutting them on the wealthy, on false pretenses. More broadly, were breaking a major promise if we now, after 20 years of high payroll taxes to pay for Social Securitys future, declare that it was all a little joke on the public. The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in Social Securitys future is this: if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, its just part of the federal budget: there cant be a Social Security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis. Rising Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but its hard to make the case that it will be central. But those who insist that we face a Social Security crisis want to have it both ways. Having invoked the concept of a unified budget to reject the existence of a trust fund, they refuse to accept the implications of that unified budget going forward. Instead, having changed the rules to make the trust fund meaningless, they want to change the rules back around 15 years from now: today, when the payroll tax takes in more revenue than SS benefits, they say thats meaningless, but when in 2018 or later benefits start to exceed the payroll tax, why, thats a crisis. Huh? I dont know why this contradiction is so hard to understand, except to echo Upton Sinclair: its hard to get a man to understand something when his salary (or, in the current situation, his membership in the political club) depends on his not understanding it. But let me try this one more time, by asking the following: What happens in 2018 or whenever, when benefits payments exceed payroll tax revenues? The answer, very clearly, is nothing. The Social Security system wont be in trouble: it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus. The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. Thats not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning. Now its true that rising benefit costs will be a drag on the federal budget. So will rising Medicare costs. So will the ongoing drain from tax cuts. So will whatever wars we get into. I cant find a story under which Social Security payments, as opposed to other things, become a crucial budgetary problem in 2018. What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are we talking about a Social Security crisis? -Paul Krugman
I'm sorry, my info was a little outdated. The Social Security Trust Fund now holds $2.6Trillion in US Treasury Bonds, not $2.8Trillion. Excess SS collections are put in what is considered the safest investment in the world, US government securities. In fact the Special Issue US Treasury Bonds that SS invests in are even safer than the usual US Treasury Bonds since they can always be redeemed at face value, which is not always the case with US Treasury Bonds traded on the open market. Here is their latest report: http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/investheld.cgi
Demand repayment to the government from all of the subsidy receivers since 1980 to fund social security: Public housing, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, energy assistance, EITC, etc. Why should I have to pay for rent/mortgage and food when someone else doesn't have to pay those bills at my expense? Congress should not play the role of Robin Hood and there should be criminal charges for spending money allocated for one program and spent on another program.
Jon Stewart said he wants reimbursed for the Iraq/Afghan wars. I think the republicans should pay back the $3 trillion they gave to millionaires. The republicans were demanding that the one year payroll tax cut extension for the middle class be payed for, so hey. Then there's the first gulf war. Before that Raygun gave a half billion dollars worth of war machine to the Taliban, and all the cold war nukes he spent trillions on. Man you got nothin.
Great stuff! Its really interesting to know about all this kind of stuff, thanks for sharing and keep sharing more!
Demand repayment of all government subsidies and special tax exemptions to farmers, oil companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and all other corporations. Why should I have to subsidize these private corporations so they can be assured of making a profit? Congress should not play the role of robber baron and there should be criminal charges for allocating monies and tax exemptions to private corporations. I want my taxes to go to those who are most in need, which is not the shareholders of corporations or the owners of businesses that require special treatment to stay in business. If all that was eliminated my taxes would be reduced significantly and the poor and bereft not neglected.
Many baby boomers looking at a rough retirement... Few U.S. cities are ready for aging baby boomer population 25 Mar.`12 – Few communities have started to think long term about how to plan and redesign services for aging baby boomers as they move out of the workforce and into retirement.
Drinking the koolaid are we? Pelosi voted to extend the tax cuts in Dec 2010 (or lose her benifactors), and the Democrats did nothing about those tax cuts when they had full control of the House and Senate.
On average, people join the workforce at 20, they retire 45 years late at 65, and on average die 16 years later at 81. The ratio of worker to retiree will stabilize at less than 3:1. That is unsustainable.
I'd say you are wasted on GOP koolaid. The cons have been whining about taxes since the rates for millionaires was 90% when Eisenhower was POTUS. Those tax rates are now 35% and cons still have bleeding hearts for the filthy rich. And all those tax cuts for the rich during Shrub's eight years only doubled the national debt and destroyed the economy. Tax cuts were supposed to create jobs, remember? Well, looks like cons just scammed America for the rich pukes.
The Democrats had almost 2 years to increase taxes, yet they didn't. Why not? Why did Pelosi vote to extend the tax cuts, even for the rich?
Don't play dumb. You know as well as I that it takes 60 votes in the senate to pass anything. And that's how the cons have been obstructing everything for the past two years.
I'm playing dumb? How many months did the Democrats have 60 votes before Scott Brown was elected? Yet, that wasn't on their agenda.
So how is this the fault of the democrats? When the republicans passed the Bush tax cuts they knew that they were creating this crises since it was well known as far back as the 1980s that SS would be cashing in its savings starting about 2010.
