Paladin 77

There was NO money taken from Social Security from 65-67. When the Fed has used any of the Surpluses to fund the budget like Bush is doing today, they issue Bonds for that money. The problem will be when these bonds must be repaid to pay for future benefits. That however is not because of Social Security it is because we refuse to BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET by taxing as much as we spend! There is about $1.6 Trillion of those bonds from the Fed that make up the Social Security Trust Fund. There were benefits added. I have already explained that Congress increased the Social Security taxes to pay for those changes. What you are talking about has been fixed a long time ago.

The issue is finding a solution to how we pay the benefits promised to the Boomers. If the private accounts, as you admit., not only does not solve that problem but makes the funding problem worse, we can not do something that will not make the funding issue worse.

I never said it makes the problem worse. The solution is to keep the Governments hands out of the Social Security fund. Private accounts do not make the problem worse that conclusion is another lie told to keep the system in crisis.

The issue is NOT the government using the Social Security Money for other things.

You are wrong, that is the reason the fund is short money.

In fact the annual Budget Deficit would not be eliminated by creating private accounts.

I am starting to understand what you are saying. Why fix the problem when we can just let it fall apart. Due to your stadfast desire to avoid the truth you missed the minor fact that Socical Security is not a budget item. Now we will have to dip into the budget to pay back the money stolen in order to pay benifits but that is as far as it goes.

In fact, it could make the problem worse if we need to begin taking money from the General Fund Budget to supplement the money for Social Security payments to the Boomers.

Ok, maybe you don't understand how it works and you are not interested in learning how it works.

The money Bush would divert to private accounts is promised to help pay Social Security Retirement and diverting these funds makes the Boomer problem much worse!

Sorry fella, no money would be diverted into private accounts by the government. The money would be diverted by the owners of the account. So what you are saying is that people have no right to do anything with their own money and that people should not be given a say in how their money is spent. You are also suggesting that it is better to pour money into a system that does not work so they can not have it to spend.

There was NO money taken from Social Security from 65-67.

Ok if you believe that, then we are at that stage again where you ignore the truth in favor of a myth. I am sure you also believe in the Easter Bunny. As I stated before it is a matter of public record. The Congressional Record. You know the official documents of the United States Congress. not some wacky left or right wing group.

That however is not because of Social Security it is because we refuse to BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET by taxing as much as we spend! There is about $1.6 Trillion of those bonds from the Fed that make up the Social Security Trust Fund.

Very good, you still don't believe that Congress stole the money but the President is responsible for Social Security going broke. If you try, you might remember that was a part of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore's speeches during the 2000 election on how they were going to try and save the system, meaning that it was known to be going broke long before Mr. Bush took office. I think Mr. Gore might call this an inconvenient truth. lol As I stated before Social Security is not supposed to be touched by the budget in any way. That money is supposed to be collected and held for Social Security payments only.

I have already explained that Congress increased the Social Security taxes to pay for those changes. What you are talking about has been fixed a long time ago.

If you want a quick fix for Social Security why not get rid of the taxes that people on Social Security have to pay? That would give them a pay raise without costing a dime.

What you are talking about has been fixed a long time ago.

If that is true then why is it that during the 2000 elections they were saying that the fund would be broke by 2005?

If it were not for the abnormal number of people born after WWII, we would not be facing the shortfall in the future. Today we have about 3.5 people working and paying taxes for every person retired. That will drop to about 2 people working for every retired because of the Baby Boomers. The money collected from Social Security Taxes has been paid to those the law provided for and was not used for other things. You seem to object to the additional benefits that were added but since the tax structure was adjusted to fund those added benefits that is NOT the problem we face in paying the Boomers their retirement benefits.

Sorry but I never said anything about added benefits, you must have me confused with someone just as smart as me but it was not me. Also, there used to be 25 workers paying in to support one retiree, that would create a huge surplus, now there is 3.5 supporting a retiree that is a significant drop don't you think? Here is a one for you, I got this from Rush Limbaugh's site.

The president traveled the country to warn that his generation's impending retirement, 76 million people would bankrupt the generations to follow. 'It would be unconscionable if we failed to act,' The President said at a forum he made fixing the nation's retirement program a top priority. The President appointed a bipartisan commission which delivered three options to save the program. They included a now familiar list of possible benefit cuts from changing indexing formulas to changing the retirement age, and one of the options would allow workers to divert five percentage points of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, the first such proposal by a government commission. The President started campaigning for changes without saying what he endorsed. 'I don't want to dodge any of that,' he said. 'but if I advocate a specific plan right now, then all the debate will be about that. First thing we gotta do is get the American people solidly lined up behind change.'

What do you think of that?

Paladin 77

If you do not have enough money to pay all your bills and someone takes money away, you are further from being able to pay your bills. That is what will happen if some of the Social Security Taxes go from paying benefits to the Boomers to private accounts for the X and Y Generations. If you want to get the Fed out of the Social Security Fund, we must balance the budget and STOP using the surplus from Social Security to help balance the budget the way Bush has done.

With the 3.5 People working for every retired the Social Security system is JUST FINE. The Proof is the $175 Billion Dollar Surplus Social Security generated last year with 3.5 People working for every person retired. The problem in the future comes when that 3.5 drops to 2.0 because of the Boomers.

You do not have the most basic understanding of what is causing the funding problem with Social Security!!!!

Paladin 77

If you cut Social Security taxes now as you suggest, Social Security would have to stop paying benefits to the current population that is retired. That would mean millions of retired would stop spending and the economy would end up in a Depression.

You sir are an IDIOT!

If you cut Social Security taxes now as you suggest, Social Security would have to stop paying benefits to the current population that is retired. That would mean millions of retired would stop spending and the economy would end up in a Depression. You sir are an IDIOT!

Ok, maybe I was not clear on this point I will try again. People on Social Security have to pay taxes on the money they receive. That is what I wish to cut.

With the 3.5 People working for every retired the Social Security system is JUST FINE.

If it is just fine then why is it the President, as I quoted in my last post, was trying to fix social security and trying to keep it from going broke? Answer that one and maybe I will begin to understand what you are saying. Those same estimates that said there would be a surplus that never really was says the SS fund would be broke by 2005. It would seem that President Bush saved that from happening.

Paladin77

The issue is that when the large number of Boomers retire, that 3.5 drops to 2.0. At that point in the future the taxes that will be paid by the 2.0 workers will only pay 75% of the benefits for the 1 retired person. What Bush proposed is to allow younger workers ( Not Boomers because they are too old to build a separate account) to set aside money that is promised to help pay the Boomer Retirement. That makes the problem WORSE not better. That is why what Bush suggests is not a solution.

If we can find a way to replace the lost revenue from taxing Social Security Benefits I would agree with what you suggest. However is we just eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits (85% if you income is above a certain level) we simple increase the Annual Budget Deficit.

The issue is that when the large number of Boomers retire, that 3.5 drops to 2.0. At that point in the future the taxes that will be paid by the 2.0 workers will only pay 75% of the benefits for the 1 retired person. What Bush proposed is to allow younger workers ( Not Boomers because they are too old to build a separate account) to set aside money that is promised to help pay the Boomer Retirement. That makes the problem WORSE not better. That is why what Bush suggests is not a solution.

It seems that the President with his tax cuts has come up with a surplus by your accounts. Something that was not happening before. The people that are supposed to get their benefits cut because of the short fall are the ones that voted in the idiots that stole their money. Next time people might want to pay attention to whom is elected. How can it make the situation worse? Private accounts are only made up from 2% of the SS taxes collected by individule. Hell, President Clinton proposed 5% in private accounts to solve the problem when it was reported that the SS fund would go broke in 2005. This is what I mean by you don't understand the problem. Every responsible president has proposed private accounts since Mr. Roosevelt was in office. And yes, in this case even Mr. Clinton was responsible. Mr. Carter did not propose this because the entire nation was going broke under his watch. I don't hate Democrats in office I hate that they create a problem then blame others for it when they can't solve it using thier ideas. Clinton stole from everyone so if it worked he would propose it. The Democrats in Congress shot that down becaue of the impeachment stuff, it would give the Republicans two wins instead of one. (politics)

However is we just eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits (85% if you income is above a certain level) we simple increase the Annual Budget Deficit.

So what I get from this is it is ok to take money away from the people that earned it but not ok to cut benefits. Is that what you are saying?

Paladin 77

The surplus in Social Security existed BEFORE Bush became president. The Bush Tax Cut has NOTHING to do with generating a Surplus in Social Security. Bush has used the Surplus from Social Security to cover PART of the Annual Budget Deficit he created by his Federal Income Tax cuts and increased general fund spending i.e. the Iraq war!

Paladin 77

What I am saying is that if we stop taxing Social Security Benefits we NEED to replace that lost revenue. I would like to see an end to taxing Social Security benefits. If we end the Bush tax cuts to the top 10% we could use some of that money to end the tax on Social Security Benefits.

What I am saying is that if we stop taxing Social Security Benefits we NEED to replace that lost revenue. I would like to see an end to taxing Social Security benefits. If we end the Bush tax cuts to the top 10% we could use some of that money to end the tax on Social Security Benefits.

Where are you getting this?

The surplus in Social Security existed BEFORE Bush became president. The Bush Tax Cut has NOTHING to do with generating a Surplus in Social Security. Bush has used the Surplus from Social Security to cover PART of the Annual Budget Deficit he created by his Federal Income Tax cuts and increased general fund spending i.e. the Iraq war!

I will try to explain it one more time. Social Security money does not go into the budget. The General Fund takes care of two main things. Social Security and the Postal Service. Those are listed in the budget as Off Budget. This means that the money is there but is not supposed to be touched by anyone other than the programs they are held for unless the Congress authorizes it. If what you say is true then the Democrats would be screaming their heads off on how Mr. Bush is stealing ss funds to pay for the war and of course they would vote against any such action. To my memory it has only been done twice, 1966 and 1967. Does anyone remember hearing of this happening during the election period of 2004?

What Bush is doing is taking the Surplus from Social Security to partially fund the annual budget deficit. When the Surplus is used the Treasury issues IOU's to Social Security for the Surplus used to partially offset the budget deficit. When Social Security needs that money to pay benefits in the future, the Treasury will either be forced to sell more bonds to refund the IOU's or increased taxes to honor those IOU's.

What Bush is doing is taking the Surplus from Social Security to partially fund the annual budget deficit. When the Surplus is used the Treasury issues IOU's to Social Security for the Surplus used to partially offset the budget deficit. When Social Security needs that money to pay benefits in the future, the Treasury will either be forced to sell more bonds to refund the IOU's or increased taxes to honor those IOU's.

What Bush is doing is taking the Surplus from Social Security to partially fund the annual budget deficit. When the Surplus is used the Treasury issues IOU's to Social Security for the Surplus used to partially offset the budget deficit. When Social Security needs that money to pay benefits in the future, the Treasury will either be forced to sell more bonds to refund the IOU's or increased taxes to honor those IOU's.

Where are you getting this? As I said before, if what you say is true the Democrats would scream bloody murder!

Paladin77

They have been complaining about the fact that Congress failed to keep Social Security funds in a lock box. This is what is taking place. In 2005 Bush reported an Annual Deficit of $420 Billion. However the National Debt increased by $620 Billion. That was the $420 Bush acknowledged and the $200 Billion in IOU's that the Treasury issued to Social Security and Medicare for the Surplus those two funds experienced in 2005. ALL of the Trust Funds for both Social Security and Medicare are these IOU's issued by the Treasury. In fact there was a news clip earlier this year that showed Bush in Virginia looking at the rows and rows of vaults that contained the IOU’s issued by the Treasury which are the trust funds. The Social Security Trust fund is about 1.6 Trillion. I believe the Medicare Trust Fund is about a Trillion.



Special Issue Securities
Updated November 8, 2005
Trust funds and types of investments The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund comprise the Social Security trust funds. Both funds are managed by the Department of the Treasury. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government. There are two general types of such securities:
Special issues—available only to the trust funds
Public issues—marketable Treasury bonds available to the public.
The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past.
Special issues:
types and properties There are two types of special issues: short-term certificates of indebtedness and long-term bonds.
The certificates of indebtedness are issued on a daily basis for the investment of receipts not required to meet current expenditures, and they mature on the next June 30 following the date of issue.
Special-issue bonds are normally acquired only when special issues of either type mature on June 30. The bonds have maturities ranging from one to fifteen years.
The above properties of special issue securities are summarized in the following table.
Type of special issue Investment
frequency Maturity
Certificates of indebtedness Daily Next June 30
Bonds June 30 1 to 15 years